NationStates Jolt Archive

A soon-to-be law in Georgia that would have required a convicted sexual predator to live no nearer than 1000 feet from a school bus stop was overturned by a federal judge. This would have essentially required that the the convicts live on roller-skates, because the school bus stops are changed frequently. Convicted sex offenders are already prohibited from living within 1000 feet of "...child care centers, schools and places where children congregate."

In my opinion the new law is a bad law, made in haste. After all, it's not like we have put an impenetrable partition around these areas. Sure, we want children to be safe at bus stops, but this isn't the way. Concerned parents watching the kids at the bus stops is the best way to assure their safety.

Anyhow, what sorts of rights to a permanent residence should a sexual offender have?

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0630metsexjudge.html

I'm unclear as to why sexual predators should ever be permitted to leave prison. I'd say the bare minimum sentence should be life in prison with no possibility of parole, with mandatory 14 hour work days, and with 100% of their earnings being donated to organizations that help victims of sexual assault.

quick question: are sexual predators people? are they human?

then that determines whether or not they have rights, in your opinion.

clearly if sex offenders are let out of prison the general idea is that they won't commit the crime again so though you could justify not allowing near school just-in-case I fail to see the point in making them live away from a bus stop especially since the idea is that when your far away from school there would be a bus to catch to get there kind of leaves the ex-sex offender with nowhere to live doesn’t it

Also who the hell commits crimes in the area they live?

Anyhow, what sorts of rights to a permanent residence should a sexual offender have?

Lets be naieve and assume the offender is only released when:
a. (s)he has served his/her sentence
b. is no longer a threat due to counseling etc.

In that case the offender should have full rights. The debt to society has been paid. I will even go as far as to forbid people to pass on the info that (s)he was an offender.
In light of this however I think it only fair that sentences are severe.

I haven't got a clue as to what rights predators have.

And actually, I could not care less.

if a sexual predator violates those rights of another human being, then by default I think their human rights become nul and void

do unto others and all that bollox

Lets be naieve and assume the offender is only released when:
a. (s)he has served his/her sentence
b. is no longer a threat due to counseling etc.

In that case the offender should have full rights. The debt to society has been paid. I will even go as far as to forbid people to pass on the info that (s)he was an offender.
In light of this however I think it only fair that sentences are severe.


Agreed. They should have the same rights as anybody else.

Agreed. They should have the same rights as anybody else.


Kindly try proving that.

I think it's a big load of bulldust you just spouted.

Kindly try proving that.

I think it's a big load of bulldust you just spouted.
prove that predators have rights?

they are citizens who are fully capable of making decisions.
theay are human.

proven.

prove that predators have rights?

they are citizens who are fully capable of making decisions.
theay are human.

proven.
That proves owt.
Why should I consider granting a human-in-general rights?
Got some paper signed by JHWH that says I have to?
Let alone one saying I gotta grant rights to scum?

Come on, mate - you pose a 'should'.
Try proving the 'should' of it.

i don't necessarily like it but the offenders who do the time are technically free citizens - asking them to do a lot of stuff retroactively is poor kneejerk reactionisn

that said, they need to be locked up forever if convicted - no parole either

prove that predators have rights?

they are citizens who are fully capable of making decisions.
theay are human.

proven.

I have an issue saying that people able to commit horrible mistakes continue to be citizens, are able of making decisions respecting the freedom and rights of others, and perhaps I could daresay that I could even remove the status of humans from them after making animalistic choices, but meh, it's just an opinion.

After all, noone is going to name me the next World's Dominator in my lifespan

That proves owt.
Why should I consider granting a human-in-general rights?
Got some paper signed by JHWH that says I have to?
Let alone one saying I gotta grant rights to scum?

Come on, mate - you pose a 'should'.
Try proving the 'should' of it.
we should give them rights because they are people, low down scum of the earth people, but people nonetheless.

if you dont believe in human rights then take a vacation in sudan.

EDIT: now, i'm not saying that they dont deserve jail time (i prefer castration as a viable option, 'eye for an eye'), and its a great idea to put them in jail for life, but you cannot take away human dignity and respct for others.

we should give them rights because they are people, low down scum of the earth people, but people nonetheless.

if you dont believe in human rights then take a vacation in sudan.

I'm not sure you get it.

How does being human turn into: having a claim to rights? By what authority?

I'm not sure you get it.

How does being human turn into: having a claim to rights? By what authority?

Because someone made a mistake some time ago, saying that any being born from the womb of a woman should have the same rights as anyone else.

Kindly try proving that.

I think it's a big load of bulldust you just spouted.
Sure. Felons don't get to vote. They don't get a lot of rights that non-felons have. But do they have the right to occupy a residence without further interference? Most do. It's just that we seem to be on a bandwagon to single out sex offenders to a greater extent than any other type of released felon.

I'm not sure you get it.
no, i dont.
How does being human turn into: having a claim to rights? By what authority?

it doesnt. our law states they have rights, but it can be ignored. the constitution has no power over the granting of rights and dignity.

in fact, no man can give another rights to anything.

sadly, and i want to cut myself over this, its morality that dictates kindness to others, and thats the only defense.

considering there are no such things as human rights.

Kindly try proving that.

I think it's a big load of bulldust you just spouted.

They are human – just as you and I. And as a human they have the same rights as you and I. If they commit a crime, then they should be put behind bars for a while. In the case of child-molesters it should be a looooooong while – possibly for life unless they can truly abstain from their desires. But in any case, once they’ve served their time they are free – just as murderers, rapist, traffic offenders and so on.

I'm unclear as to why sexual predators should ever be permitted to leave prison. I'd say the bare minimum sentence should be life in prison with no possibility of parole, with mandatory 14 hour work days, and with 100% of their earnings being donated to organizations that help victims of sexual assault.

I think a rope is cheaper. You can reuse the rope.

I think a rope is cheaper. You can reuse the rope.
another example where cheeper =/= better

I think a rope is cheaper. You can reuse the rope.
A rope is also kinder. I'm willing to endure the added expense, in this case.

I'm unclear as to why sexual predators should ever be permitted to leave prison. I'd say the bare minimum sentence should be life in prison with no possibility of parole, with mandatory 14 hour work days, and with 100% of their earnings being donated to organizations that help victims of sexual assault.
Why is this a worse crime than, say, aggravated assault? We don't lock those felons away on their first offense, yet they have beaten someone very badly. Or how about manslaughter? There, the felon has killed another, yet we don't lock them up forever, either.

another example where cheeper =/= better
Well, if what we want is to eliminate the chance of recidivism, which runs well over 90 percent for sexual predators, I believe that leucotomy is always an option, along with physical castration (complete).

Increases in age reduce the likelihood of recidivism in sexual criminals. Recidivism rates of child molesters though declines slower and later, than do other sexual offenders (rapist and incest). According the Canadian studies, the non-related to the victim child molester is still about a 5% chance of recidivism at age 65. And using the argument that people have against capital punishment, one mistake is one too many for the risk to be taken, then no extra-familiar child molester should ever be released from prison before the age of 75.

Increases in age reduce the likelihood of recidivism in sexual criminals. Recidivism rates of child molesters though declines slower and later, than do other sexual offenders (rapist and incest). According the Canadian studies, the non-related to the victim child molester is still about a 5% chance of recidivism at age 65. And using the argument that people have against capital punishment, one mistake is one too many for the risk to be taken, then no extra-familiar child molester should ever be released from prison before the age of 75.


Sure you can release them. After you cut out their forebrain in a leucotomy, and remove their genitals completely.

Why is this a worse crime than, say, aggravated assault? We don't lock those felons away on their first offense, yet they have beaten someone very badly. Or how about manslaughter? There, the felon has killed another, yet we don't lock them up forever, either.
Those crimes are not the topic of this thread, and, hence, I confined my remarks to the topic at hand.

I'm not sure you get it.

How does being human turn into: having a claim to rights? By what authority?

Jesus.

But noone really believes in him anyway.

BogMarsh, could you at least acknowledge my statements?

Well, if what we want is to eliminate the chance of recidivism, which runs well over 90 percent for sexual predators, I believe that leucotomy is always an option, along with physical castration (complete).

Recidivism is not at 90%. Google is your friend.

Myth: Most sex offenders reoffend.

Fact: Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, reoffense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense.

Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories. As a result, research has identified significant differences in reoffense patterns from one category to another. Looking at reconviction rates alone, one large-scale analysis (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) reported the following differences:

· child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and

· rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period.

Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).

We have no right to castrate anyone, just as we don't have the right to cut off the hands of theives so they won't ever steal again.

Prior to conviction, they get all of the rights that any other citizen of said country is afforded. After conviction they are to be treated as all other criminals. They have nullified a goodly number of their rights by violating the rules of society and therefore can only have those rights which the courts allow them to have.

Increases in age reduce the likelihood of recidivism in sexual criminals. Recidivism rates of child molesters though declines slower and later, than do other sexual offenders (rapist and incest). According the Canadian studies, the non-related to the victim child molester is still about a 5% chance of recidivism at age 65. And using the argument that people have against capital punishment, one mistake is one too many for the risk to be taken, then no extra-familiar child molester should ever be released from prison before the age of 75.

Dangerous logic you're running on there. 'one mistake is too many for the risk to be taken' ergo essentially life-in-prison for a single sex offence?

Why stop there? What about murder? Manslaughter? Regular Rape? Surely one mistake is too many for the risk to be taken, so all those guys should be locked up indefinitely, right? But there's the possibility of escape.... so incarceration is out, 'cause one mistake is too many to risk it. Let's just kill them all. But that doesn't take into account that many criminals are still out there. I could be a violent molester, as could you! One mistake is too many, so let's just kill everyone indiscriminately. It's for the children, after all.

Okay, so that's horribly hyperbolic. But the idea that 'one mistake is too many for the risk to be taken' is a horrid idea that leads very bad places very quickly. Our judgement on this matter should be based on reasonable assessments of risks, as well as on ideals of justice and mercy.

We have no right to castrate anyone, just as we don't have the right to cut off the hands of theives so they won't ever steal again.

Though I do think that option should be given to the predator.
"Ok sir - we do not believe it is safe to reintroduce you into society. So you can choose: we eliminate the part of you that constitutes the main threat and let the rest of you go, or we keep you here".

Though I do think that option should be given to the predator.
"Ok sir - we do not believe it is safe to reintroduce you into society. So you can choose: we eliminate the part of you that constitutes the main threat and let the rest of you go, or we keep you here".

Well the problem there is that it's a copout. We're saying 'we know you're probably not safe enough to let out... but if you let us cut off your naughty bits, we'll say it's okay.'

A guy's penis is not the only way he can molest children, and if he really isn't cured(or cureable at all), cutting it off isn't much protection. I'd prefer we stow the barbarity and work more heavily on psychology as the way to reduce re-offence.

They should get the punishment the law declares. If not being allowed to live in certain areas after jail time is part of that punishment, so be it.

Recidivism is not at 90%. Google is your friend.



We have no right to castrate anyone, just as we don't have the right to cut off the hands of theives so they won't ever steal again.
Of course, the rate of re-conviction has nothing to do with the actual recidivism rate. Given that the numbers of reconviction closely parallel the numbers of actual conviction in the first place, and also given that most rapists are never taken to court as is agreed upon by any decent sociologist , and the rates of recidivism are probably quite a bit higher. Maybe not 90%, but a hell of a lot higher than 13-20%.

What rights do sexual predators have? Plenty, unfortunately.

My preferred answer would be none. As far as I'm concerned anyone who preys on children for sexual gratification should locked away for the rest of their lives. The damage these 'people' do to children is irreperable, so if the child can't live a normal life, then why should the paedophile?

Of course, the rate of re-conviction has nothing to do with the actual recidivism rate. Given that the numbers of reconviction closely parallel the numbers of actual conviction in the first place, and also given that most rapists are never taken to court as is agreed upon by any decent sociologist , and the rates of recidivism are probably quite a bit higher. Maybe not 90%, but a hell of a lot higher than 13-20%.

Okay, give me a study. I'm a reasonable guy, just show me the evidence.

What I showed you was a source backed by studies based upon the only reliable measure of recidivism I can see - reconviction rates. If you have evidence based upon anything more than speculation, I'd be happy to change my opinion. Right now though my opinion remains that confirmed recidisicm rates are between 13% and 20% on sexual predators, and that while the truth may be higher due to those that get away, the numbers are no where near such outrageous figures as 90%.

That proves owt.
Why should I consider granting a human-in-general rights?
Got some paper signed by JHWH that says I have to?
Let alone one saying I gotta grant rights to scum?

Come on, mate - you pose a 'should'.
Try proving the 'should' of it.

Most countries give citizens thereof rights. Unless you are stating that they are not human, or stating that they are not citizens, they do have rights.

Okay, give me a study. I'm a reasonable guy, just show me the evidence.

What I showed you was a source backed by studies based upon the only reliable measure of recidivism I can see - reconviction rates. If you have evidence based upon anything more than speculation, I'd be happy to change my opinion. Right now though my opinion remains that confirmed recidisicm rates are between 13% and 20% on sexual predators, and that while the truth may be higher due to those that get away, the numbers are no where near such outrageous figures as 90%.


It's higher than 20%

In contrast, Doren (1998), in a review of the research, reports that the true recidivism base rate over 25 years for extrafamilial sexual abusers is 52% and for rapists is 39%. Doren, who is involved with the sexual predator program at Mendota Mental Health Institute in Wisconsin, uses the recidivism rates from Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997). This is an extremely high risk sample. The Prentky, et al. sample consisted of 251 men who were committed to the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons (MTC). Persons who were charged after being released from MTC and persons who were residents at MTC but were previously discharged, reoffended and were recommitted were included in the sample. Also, a charge, not a conviction, was used as the index of reoffense.

In addition, the figures of 39% and 52% are estimates from the survival analysis; the percentage of new offenses at the end of the study period (25 years) was 26% for rapists and 32% for child molesters. Doren maintains that the survival analysis provides a more accurate approximation of actual recidivism.


http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_6.htm

52 percent is unacceptable risk to me.

The same as everybody else.

It's higher than 20%



http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_6.htm

52 percent is unacceptable risk to me.

I appreciate that someone actually came back with evidence.

I do have a few questions about the study you use, mainly that it admits 2 things I believe seriously compromise its integrity. First the very paragraph you quoted says:
"Doren, who is involved with the sexual predator program at Mendota Mental Health Institute in Wisconsin, uses the recidivism rates from Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997). This is an extremely high risk sample."
Using a sample at high risk for recidivism undoubtedly means his data will show a higher than average recidivism rate. Secondly, it says:
"Persons who were charged after being released from MTC and persons who were residents at MTC but were previously discharged, reoffended and were recommitted were included in the sample. Also, a charge, not a conviction, was used as the index of reoffense."
This study uses not only actual proved incidences of reoffence, but also simply charges. Not only is 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' thrown out the window, but the study is again compromised, most likely in favor of a higher than actual recidivism rate.

Again I thank you for offering the study, and I do take it into account. But its admitted flaws I believe tarnish it's claim of 52% recidivism.

I appreciate that someone actually came back with evidence.

I do have a few questions about the study you use, mainly that it admits 2 things I believe seriously compromise its integrity. First the very paragraph you quoted says:
"Doren, who is involved with the sexual predator program at Mendota Mental Health Institute in Wisconsin, uses the recidivism rates from Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997). This is an extremely high risk sample."
Using a sample at high risk for recidivism undoubtedly means his data will show a higher than average recidivism rate. Secondly, it says:
"Persons who were charged after being released from MTC and persons who were residents at MTC but were previously discharged, reoffended and were recommitted were included in the sample. Also, a charge, not a conviction, was used as the index of reoffense."
This study uses not only actual proved incidences of reoffence, but also simply charges. Not only is 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' thrown out the window, but the study is again compromised, most likely in favor of a higher than actual recidivism rate.

Again I thank you for offering the study, and I do take it into account. But its admitted flaws I believe tarnish it's claim of 52% recidivism.


I believe that most child molestation is not reported, and if reported, most do not result in conviction. I believe that it all cancels out to the 50 percent range.

I believe that most child molestation is not reported, and if reported, most do not result in conviction. I believe that it all cancels out to the 50 percent range.

Only if we assume that most of the molestations are done by a repeat offenders does it push up recidivism(I saw a factsheet in another thread with a study that said most molestations are commited by first-timers, though I'm sorry I don't have a link for you). Even then, that you believe most child molesters are unreported and most are unconvicted is not acceptable evidence when playing with peoples lives, as we are doing when considering rights.

What rights do sexual predators have? Plenty, unfortunately.

My preferred answer would be none. As far as I'm concerned anyone who preys on children for sexual gratification should locked away for the rest of their lives. The damage these 'people' do to children is irreperable, so if the child can't live a normal life, then why should the paedophile?
So you're saying that molesting a child is worse than killing a child? And that killing a child is worse than killing an adult? etc etc.

Only if we assume that most of the molestations are done by a repeat offenders does it push up recidivism(I saw a factsheet in another thread with a study that said most molestations are commited by first-timers, though I'm sorry I don't have a link for you). Even then, that you believe most child molesters are unreported and most are unconvicted is not acceptable evidence when playing with peoples lives, as we are doing when considering rights.


Well, the two previously convicted and paroled molesters in my town are quite familiar with what the neighborhood thinks of them.

There are great societal pressures that can be brought to bear on people like that without taking any legal action or breaking any laws.

They are terrified to leave their residences, which is as it should be. They have no idea if one of the neighbors is going to get the idea that they've done something, and come take care of business.

Well, the two previously convicted and paroled molesters in my town are quite familiar with what the neighborhood thinks of them.

There are great societal pressures that can be brought to bear on people like that without taking any legal action or breaking any laws.

They are terrified to leave their residences, which is as it should be. They have no idea if one of the neighbors is going to get the idea that they've done something, and come take care of business.

Well that's wrong too. The societal pressure should be one that pressures them to not reoffend and seek help. It's wrong, however, to force them to live in a state of fear backed by the constant threat of violence.

I think they should get no rights. I mean, what are we? Civilized?

I think they should get no rights. I mean, what are we? Civilized?

Catch one with your child, and tell me how many rights you'll give them before the police arrive.

Catch one with your child, and tell me how many rights you'll give them before the police arrive.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to Appeals to Emotions.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to Appeals to Emotions.
Must not have children, eh?

Must not have children, eh?

Hmm, more Appeals to Emotion.

Hmm, more Appeals to Emotion.
Emotion may not be purely logical, but it does have an evolutionary value.

Emotion may not be purely logical, but it does have an evolutionary value.

Now you're starting to make sense.

So you're saying that, when confronted with someone molesting one of my children, I should hit them with a club?

Now you're starting to make sense.

So you're saying that, when confronted with someone molesting one of my children, I should hit them with a club?

Why not? I would.

Now you're starting to make sense.

So you're saying that, when confronted with someone molesting one of my children, I should hit them with a club?

Well, you do have opposable thumbs, and are a tool user.

So you're saying that, when confronted with someone molesting one of my children, I should hit them with a club?
A chair or kitchen knife would probably be closer to hand.

Catch one with your child, and tell me how many rights you'll give them before the police arrive.

Now meet one 50 years after the molesting. The guy has been in prison and rehab the whole time and has no intention of every repeating the deed.

Here is a club. What do you do ?

Now meet one 50 years after the molesting. The guy has been in prison and rehab the whole time and has no intention of every repeating the deed.

Here is a club. What do you do ?

Tell him what we told the two in our neighborhood.

Do it again, and you die.

Well, you do have opposable thumbs, and are a tool user.

Amusingly enough, I also have a brain and a civilized upbringing.

Now granted, if I need to hit stuff with a club to make him leave my kid alone, that's fine, and his problem. Afterwards, I let the proper authorities deal with it.

Amusingly enough, I also have a brain and a civilized upbringing.

Now granted, if I need to hit stuff with a club to make him leave my kid alone, that's fine, and his problem. Afterwards, I let the proper authorities deal with it.

In my case, I would call the coroner (who would be the proper authorities at that point).

In my case, I would call the coroner (who would be the proper authorities at that point).

Then you are a murderer. Enjoy your prison stay.

Then you are a murderer. Enjoy your prison stay.

The most I would get is manslaughter. Odds on, I would not be convicted, by reason of temporary insanity.

Pretty clean, too.

I'm unclear as to why sexual predators should ever be permitted to leave prison. I'd say the bare minimum sentence should be life in prison with no possibility of parole, with mandatory 14 hour work days, and with 100% of their earnings being donated to organizations that help victims of sexual assault.
You're advocating slavery?

The earnings are also meaningless. Companies don't have to pay them anything if they're prisoners. This causes the organisations to get next to no money, and thousands of working class people to be unemployed.

Tell him what we told the two in our neighborhood.

Do it again, and you die.

And if he hadn't been in prison ? Never been punished for his deeds, but never did it again either ?

Just leave them in prison with the regular inmates. Experience has shown that sexual predators tend to be killed by the other inmates as a form of vigilante justice.

Problem solved.

You're advocating slavery?

"Community services".

That proves owt.
Why should I consider granting a human-in-general rights?
Got some paper signed by JHWH that says I have to?
Let alone one saying I gotta grant rights to scum?

Oh, I love emotional rhetoric. :rolleyes:

And if he hadn't been in prison ? Never been punished for his deeds, but never did it again either ?
It always remains to be seen whether he does it "again" or not.

It always remains to be seen whether he does it "again" or not.

Let me rephrase:
When would you personally act against a child molester instead of leaving it to the legal system ? If you catch him in the act or also at a later time if you knew he had never been punished for his deeds ?

Let me rephrase:
When would you personally act against a child molester instead of leaving it to the legal system ? If you catch him in the act or also at a later time if you knew he had never been punished for his deeds ?

We've made it pretty clear:

a) caught in the act
b) caught attempting to solicit a child
c) caught alone with any of our children

While I do agree, at first, they should deserve no rights; you should think about it as a longer term sort of thing. Albeit you'll feel like ripping the person to shreds at the moment, how much of that you do you feel 5 years from then?

Probably still at least half, or three quarters. But what about 20 years? When your child is probably above 25 years old? Or 30 years, when the convict, given the age of 40 at the scene of commit, is 70 years old. Do you still hold a grudge when the convict, who's spent almost half of his time in jail, is 70 years old? My grandmother is not even 70 years old, and she's pretty damn frail and weakly.

And while I do support and appreciate the need for logical appealment, an emotional appeal is far better. Although I can't speak for the human race, most of us are pretty susceptible to emotions. Emotions override logic.

So while you may feel they deserve no rights [logically], they do. All it'd take is a glance at some 70 year old walking fraily around in jail whose done something 30 years ago.

You're advocating slavery?

If you want to call prison labor "slavery," then sure.


The earnings are also meaningless. Companies don't have to pay them anything if they're prisoners. This causes the organisations to get next to no money, and thousands of working class people to be unemployed.
I don't know how familiar you are with the prison system, but it is quite possible for convicts to be employed in a manner that produces something of value. Whether or not the convicts receive an actual paycheck for this labor depends on the system in question. However, the fact remains that something of value has been produced. Proceeds, however minimal they may be, can be used for any number of purposes. I believe they should be used to fund organizations that help the victims of sexual assault and abuse.

This is still a pretty hot topic in Georgia. Several Sheriffs were interviewed and none seem to be solidly for the provision that requires sex offenders to live more than 1000 feet from a school bus stop. In fact one sheriff stated that in his county, there were no bus stops -- the buses went door-to-door. That would leave a felon convicted of manslaughter right next door to a housefull of kids, yet require a convicted rapist to move every time the households changed.

One heinous crime is just like another. If we don't want convicted felons in the civilian population, let's just sentence them all to life without parole.

One heinous crime is just like another. If we don't want convicted felons in the civilian population, let's just sentence them all to life without parole.
What annoys me is that there are so many people who don't believe in handing down life-sentences for sex offenders, yet who ALSO don't want to have a sex offender living in their own neighborhood. The way I look at it is, if you wouldn't feel good about having this person live down the block, then why the hell are you comfortable with them living down the block from somebody else's kids?

Well, here in my country we do not have those problems. Last statistics showed that only 2 of the last 100 children molestors imprisoned survived their time in prison, as they are usualy killed by the other inmates during the first month. Looks like guards also spread the word that a children molestor/rapist is going to prison, to ensue the colombian tie.

I'm not sure thats a good thing, but it removes the problem of the reinsertion of those guys in society.

I would need a more clear definition of the term 'sexual predator' before forming an opinion. Someone who targets to kidnap children for unspeakable actions deserves no sympathy - however someone who tried to hook up with a sixteen year old thinking she was over 18 (even with a fake ID - ala Rob Lowe) certainly does not deserve to be branded for life. Sadly - current laws and hyperbole do not seem to differentiate.

What annoys me is that there are so many people who don't believe in handing down life-sentences for sex offenders, yet who ALSO don't want to have a sex offender living in their own neighborhood. The way I look at it is, if you wouldn't feel good about having this person live down the block, then why the hell are you comfortable with them living down the block from somebody else's kids?

I assume that the government will always do the stupid thing. You know, execute the innocent, and release the guilty. There's little that can be done about government stupidity.

So we run our neighborhood a little differently. With an eye towards making sure that the "unwanted" know that while they have a legal right to live in our neighborhood (due to government stupidity), they don't have the right to have anything to do with our children.

Oh, I love emotional rhetoric. :rolleyes:


Fiddlestick you too.
I repeat - on WHOSE authority should I grant anyone rights?
Got a piece of paper saying so signed by God?
Or is it just cuz you say so?

Just what ARE fiddlesticks anyway?

Well, here in my country we do not have those problems. Last statistics showed that only 2 of the last 100 children molestors imprisoned survived their time in prison, as they are usualy killed by the other inmates during the first month. Looks like guards also spread the word that a children molestor/rapist is going to prison, to ensue the colombian tie.

I'm not sure thats a good thing, but it removes the problem of the reinsertion of those guys in society.
Personally I don’t think it is a good thing, why should we expect inmates to do and get punished for what we as a society are unwilling to do?

Personally I don’t think it is a good thing, why should we expect inmates to do and get punished for what we as a society are unwilling to do?

Because, well, they are more than willing?. I mean, noone forces them to kill sexual offenders, they do it openly on their own. After all, Venezuela has one charge sentences, if you are condemned by murdering, murdering someone else is not going to worse your condition...Just highlighting some facts here.

Because, well, they are more than willing?. I mean, noone forces them to kill sexual offenders, they do it openly on their own. After all, Venezuela has one charge sentences, if you are condemned by murdering, murdering someone else is not going to worse your condition...Just highlighting some facts here.
So killing a second person will add no time to your sentience?

Because, well, they are more than willing?. I mean, noone forces them to kill sexual offenders, they do it openly on their own. After all, Venezuela has one charge sentences, if you are condemned by murdering, murdering someone else is not going to worse your condition...Just highlighting some facts here.

If you want to sentence them to death, sentence them to death. Or do it yourself. Don't ask someone else to do the killing just because you fear the punishment or are squeamish about the sight of blood.

It's actually quite easy, and not as traumatizing as you might imagine.

If you want to sentence them to death, sentence them to death. Or do it yourself. Don't ask someone else to do the killing just because you fear the punishment or are squeamish about the sight of blood.

It's actually quite easy, and not as traumatizing as you might imagine.
Agreed … even though I am not entirely in favor of the death penalty if you are going to do it DO IT

Don’t be “Sorta” doing it. Seems too abuseable to me anyways.

So killing a second person will add no time to your sentience?

Exactly.

Kimchi, noone is asking them to kill them, you just get the gu into the prison, and perhaps the guard spread the word of "Do you see that new guy, he's here because he raped a ten year old kid". The guy appears stabbed to death two days afterwards by the rest of the inmates. It is not like someone told them, asked them, or forced them to kill him. They do it out of spite, I believe.

first of all, sexual predators should never be released from jail. someone would learn their lesson much better by spending life taking it up the ass from some six foot tall, 200 pound convict who'll kill you if you resist.

Agreed … even though I am not entirely in favor of the death penalty if you are going to do it DO IT

Don’t be “Sorta” doing it. Seems too abuseable to me anyways.

I'm in favor of the death penalty in the US, but only if there are a few changes.

1. A better review and appeal process.
2. No lethal injection - it should be something bloody and shocking.
3. It should be in public, otherwise people think it's some sanitized procedure. Mandatory broadcast on major networks.
4. An executioner should be chosen at random from the people - executioner duty should be like jury duty.
5. If the executioner can't do it, then we change the sentence to life in prison.

A fair number of people who are FOR the death penalty, or think it's OK for prisoners to kill each other don't have the cojones to do it themselves.

I'm in favor of the death penalty in the US, but only if there are a few changes.

1. A better review and appeal process.
2. No lethal injection - it should be something bloody and shocking.
3. It should be in public, otherwise people think it's some sanitized procedure. Mandatory broadcast on major networks.
4. An executioner should be chosen at random from the people - executioner duty should be like jury duty.
5. If the executioner can't do it, then we change the sentence to life in prison.

A fair number of people who are FOR the death penalty, or think it's OK for prisoners to kill each other don't have the cojones to do it themselves.
While I can understand why you choose some of your points there are some of them that violate other rights such as freedom of the press (forced broadcasting on major networks)

That and essentially allowing one man (executioner) that is not a member of our legal system (such as a judge) make the decision on sentencing.

But I can see your point

Well, here in my country we do not have those problems. Last statistics showed that only 2 of the last 100 children molestors imprisoned survived their time in prison,

You mean of the last 100 people found guilty of child molestation. And, as we all know how the justice systems in Latin America work, I'm pretty sure all the 100 were truly guilty, with no shadow of a doubt whatsoever and that all of the child molestors get caught.

What this has to do with having the cojones of dealing with it personally?

I'll do it myself, but why I have to go there and do it when there 400 guys making a line to stab them?

I am split on this issue. On one hand, I believe in my country's system of laws and punishments given out when one breaks those laws, but on the other, the sexual molestation of a child is so disgusting that I want the molester to rot without any consideration to whether he is rehabilitated or not. Also, it is my belief that it is impossible to completely rehabilitate a sexual predator using conventional methods. Perhaps then, if we are to release these men (and occasionally women) back into public life, we must show them first hand what kind of pain they placed upon their victims.

I'm not sure you get it.

How does being human turn into: having a claim to rights? By what authority?

The Constitution of the United States of America

Sexual predators should have the right to organise a meeting between Mr Testicles and Captain Boltcutter.

People like that should have no rights whatsoever. They should be shot, perhaps by their victim(s). However, the world is far too liberal to allow this sort of justice so life imprisonment should do the trick. The UK seems too cowardly even to do this.

People like that should have no rights whatsoever. They should be shot, perhaps by their victim(s). However, the world is far too liberal to allow this sort of justice so life imprisonment should do the trick. The UK seems too cowardly even to do this.

We have this thing where we like to rehabilitate people instead of needlessly killing or giving up on them.

We have this thing where we like to rehabilitate people instead of needlessly killing or giving up on them.

Rehabilitation has a poor track record here in the US. Extensive reviews of multiple studies since the 1970s to the present by Dr. Samenow show that it's a universal failure.

Read Dr. Samenow's seminal book, "Inside the Criminal Mind"

Sounds too much like it'll launch into an extensive and lengthy rant in support of phrenology.

Sounds too much like it'll launch into an extensive and lengthy rant in support of phrenology.
Hardly. Dr. Samenow is the leading US expert on crime and punishment. He's the one most likely to be called as an expert evaluator in Federal cases where the accused is claiming an insanity defense.

Dr. Samenow's thoughts on pedophiles:

How "Errors in Thinking" Apply to Pedophiles

I have been asked occasionally whether the "errors in thinking" that give rise to many forms of criminal conduct apply also to sex offenders, especially pedophiles. The answer is that they do. Specifically:

1. The pedophile does not put himself in the place of the youngster in terms of considering possible psychological damage.
2. The pedophile justifies sexual contact with minors when held accountable in many ways, including saying that the youngster "wanted it." Even if this were the case, the perpetrator knows it is illegal and that not only he will pay a price for this behavior, but the youngster will likely have to face interviews by the police, social services, and others. That is, there is an aftermath that causes suffering even if the youngster willingly participated. So there is not an operational concept of "injury" to others.
3. The pedophile insists that the behavior be kept secret. He is exercising control over the youngster to protect himself.
4. The pedophile is shutting off from awareness deterrents, both in terms of potential consequences of what he knows to be a wrongful act, and he is shutting off deterrents of conscience.
5. The pedophile regards his situation as unique and fully acceptable and justifiable after the fact.
6. The pedophile often takes advantage of youngsters who are emotionally troubled and psychologically needy.
7. The pedophile operates in secrecy. He knows right from wrong but what he wants to do is "right" for him at the time.

These are among the thinking errors that perpetrators of other crimes demonstrate by their conduct.

i hate sexual predators as much as the next person but tbh they do need to be given the oppurtunity to reform.

Yes, for those of you who want [and demand] life imprisonment, that pretty much destroys the whole idea of the judicial system. It's there to punish, true, but why do people punish people? So that they learn not to do it again. Now if they spent their life in jail, it kind of destroys the point.

It sets an example for others? Well this kind of stuff isn't broadcasted, how the hell would they know? And to be honest I don't even know what some of my punishments are for breaking a crime, so how would they as well?

One word:
Castration.

Nobody here has yet to define exact;y what a 'sexual predator' is. I am sure that there are many eighteen year old boys with seventeen year old girlfriends who could easily fall into that loosly defined definition... Shall we castrate them?

Nobody here has yet to define exact;y what a 'sexual predator' is. I am sure that there are many eighteen year old boys with seventeen year old girlfriends who could easily fall into that loosly defined definition... Shall we castrate them?
The Georgia Legislature defines them as anyone convicted of a sex crime. I'm not quite sure what the popular definition is.

Increases in age reduce the likelihood of recidivism in sexual criminals. Recidivism rates of child molesters though declines slower and later, than do other sexual offenders (rapist and incest). According the Canadian studies, the non-related to the victim child molester is still about a 5% chance of recidivism at age 65. And using the argument that people have against capital punishment, one mistake is one too many for the risk to be taken, then no extra-familiar child molester should ever be released from prison before the age of 75.
It's that kind of thinking that got incest offenders in California an exemption to the rape laws there. All forms of child molesters should be put away for a hell of a long time, and people who rape their own kids shouldn't be punished less.

You can read about California's incest excemption here:
http://www.protect.org/california/pc1203_066Explanation.html

I'm unclear as to why sexual predators should ever be permitted to leave prison. I'd say the bare minimum sentence should be life in prison with no possibility of parole, with mandatory 14 hour work days, and with 100% of their earnings being donated to organizations that help victims of sexual assault.

I agree. Sex offenders should never see the light of day. They give up their rights when they commit their heinous acts. There's no justification for what they did and they shouldn't even be allowed to live, to be honest. People whine that they have a disease. Yeah I have one too, I want to see people who commit crimes actually serve jail terms and be punished for their acts rather than let them be free to do it again. Civil rights my ass, fry the jerkbags.

Honestly, I'm all for sexual predators living on roller skates. They'd have to be bright orange or some other color that would allow them to be immediately recognized so that people could accidentally trip them. They could skate themselves to death and I would not share one tear. I say do it. Enact the Sexual Predator Roller Skates Law RIGHT NOW!

What annoys me is that there are so many people who don't believe in handing down life-sentences for sex offenders, yet who ALSO don't want to have a sex offender living in their own neighborhood. The way I look at it is, if you wouldn't feel good about having this person live down the block, then why the hell are you comfortable with them living down the block from somebody else's kids?
I agree. That stance is horribly inconsistent.

Either they're a danger or they're not. If they're not a danger, then further punishment is meaningless, and if they are a danger, letting them back into the community is idiotic.