NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, Florida got the ball rolling and overwhelmingly passed "Jessica's Law" into Law.

I know a lot of you here don't like Bill O'Reilly but he has to be accredited for his strong Pursuit of getting other states to step up to the plate and get harsher sentences for the rapes and murder of our Children.

Here is a map of the Nation, which is color coded to show which and what certain states are and not doing with regards to protecting our children.

http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels;jsessionid=849AE5F9D714E8218E32799D40686C9C

More Info on the Jessica Law.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law

Now the states of Massachusetts and Vermont doesn't really surprise me none. I feel that they rather protect these criminals over the innocence of our children. Tennessee is a shocker, I can't believe they haven't taken the step towards better protecting our kids.

What are your opinions......?

i would like to ask you country to stop naming laws after people. and ask you not to link to biased sites, and be less USA-centric.

It's a great law; states like Massachusetts will eventually accept progress.

I don’t think you can give set sentences for criminals surely (especially in this case) its more to do with the mental health of the patient and if psychiatrists think he will commit the crime again

And watch out for the Ebil paedophiles there everywhere you know and if we kill all the paedophiles now the problem will not exist in the future!:rolleyes:

The law restrictions on living places are going to play merry hell with a lot of people, along with the difficulty of actually monitoring everyone.

i would like to ask you country to stop naming laws after people. and ask you not to link to biased sites, and be less USA-centric.

Umm... Okay, by what you've just said, you are being Euro-centric. So, because you don't like laws named after victims which inspire people to take action, we should change to fit Europe. And, if the biased site has a good point, why not use it? Why don't you pull yourself from your bias and stop being such a Euro-centric hypocrit, okay?

i would like to ask you country to stop naming laws after people. and ask you not to link to biased sites, and be less USA-centric.

This Law just happened to be passed and named in remembrance and full support of Jessica's Family. As for the "biased" site, all that Bill O'Reilly is doing is showing the map who have passed similar laws for the protection of our Young, Is it that bad to name of Law after somebody? Is it that bad to show a map of states which are doing something to better protect the children and also to show the ones not doing anything or that are inconclusive?

What are you on? Or do you just like to go around attempting to start stuff?

If you don't like the post then don't POST.....geez.

It's a great law; states like Massachusetts will eventually accept progress.

Don't make fun of my state! It's just the fact that we have a terrible governer like Mitt Romney. People in my school could do a better job than that anti-gay, anti-stem cell research, uber-conservative guy.

I can't wait for Deval Patrick to take office...

Anyways, I believe that rape is completely unacceptable and I go with the Sharia (Islamic Law) on this one: stone the rapist.

It isn’t surprising to me at all. Those places where these laws have passed, they don’t care about the horrible violence inflicted on the children or the chronic physiological issues that they will develop. They just love legislating sex, even if it’s of the most perverted variety.

Another side to the story.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5307

My heart bleeds for these sex offenders. Really. Why should they be punished when they so obviously need "help". Let them destroy all the lives they possibly can since it is only a "disease" and imprisoning them would be wrong. Yes, that is the answer! Anyone they harm will just have to suck it up because as they are ill, imprisonment is not the answer. Letting them stay in the community is, for they are much more important then their potential victims. Yup, some people really know where the real priorities are.

Really now, I think child molestation should get you life imprisonment. I'd say give them the needle, but then I'd calm down and remember that the death penalty is wrong. Shouldn't stop us from locking them up forever however. Anyone who harms a child is the lowest of all the scum out there.

Besides, sentences are archaic, anyway. Rehabilitate people. Make them useful to society again. If that takes the rest of their life, fine. If that takes two months, fine.

Besides, sentences are archaic, anyway. Rehabilitate people. Make them useful to society again. If that takes the rest of their life, fine. If that takes two months, fine.

The problem with "rehabilitation" is that it can be faked. That is very unfortunate, but it is a truth.

Now the states of Massachusetts and Vermont doesn't really surprise me none. I feel that they rather protect these criminals over the innocence of our children.

I live in Massachusetts, so I can speak from first hand experience here.

Here, they have the WORST laws in regards to sexual crimes EVER. Rapists are let out of jail early, or don't even recieve jail at all. Then, all that happens is that they're put into a different community where they can rape more, unsuspecting children. What the hell?!

And, the sex offender database is lacking a lot, so I've heard. Some people don't even register, and they don't get in trouble with the law at all!

And don't worry: the people don't like this. But, we know where to place the blame; Mitt Romney, Kerry Healy, and they're policies of anything-but-gays. They're too obsessed with stopping gay marriage and gay rights (just recently Romney is trying to force the people to vote to decide on gay marriage) that they don't give a hell about sex offenders, the Big Dig (which is wasting tax payers' dollars BIG TIME) or anything else. This is why Kerry Healy was murdered (metaphorically, of course) in the election.

Deval Patrick will fix things just like Bill Clinton did when he took his first term of office. The only question is whether or not Deval Patrick will be able to fix such chaos in the now-horrible state of Massachusetts. It's like asking a 9-year-old child to clean up the damage from Hurricane Katrina all by himself. The damage has been done, and not even someone like D. Patrick can fix it.

The problem with "rehabilitation" is that it can be faked. That is very unfortunate, but it is a truth.

Thats what probation officers are for.

The problem with "rehabilitation" is that it can be faked. That is very unfortunate, but it is a truth.

And there is nothing that stresses citizens more than "faked-rehabilitation". It means more tax money to be wasted.

Thats what probation officers are for.

Which is why there are so many people breaking their probation again and again?

But what if they do it on accident?

All jokings aside, this is a great law, everyone should support it, blah blah blah.

Thats what probation officers are for.

As if they aren't fooled all the time. And they are often overworked and can't keep track of all their charges.

Umm... Okay, by what you've just said, you are being Euro-centric. So, because you don't like laws named after victims which inspire people to take action, we should change to fit Europe. And, if the biased site has a good point, why not use it? Why don't you pull yourself from your bias and stop being such a Euro-centric hypocrit, okay?

what do you know, you have not seen mush of my posts, because you are new here. i can tell from the fact you only have 8 post.

My heart bleeds for these sex offenders. Really. Why should they be punished when they so obviously need "help". Let them destroy all the lives they possibly can since it is only a "disease" and imprisoning them would be wrong. Yes, that is the answer! Anyone they harm will just have to suck it up because as they are ill, imprisonment is not the answer. Letting them stay in the community is, for they are much more important then their potential victims. Yup, some people really know where the real priorities are.

Really now, I think child molestation should get you life imprisonment. I'd say give them the needle, but then I'd calm down and remember that the death penalty is wrong. Shouldn't stop us from locking them up forever however. Anyone who harms a child is the lowest of all the scum out there.

You scared me there for a little bit.....:eek: .........I'm better now....;)

Umm... Okay, by what you've just said, you are being Euro-centric. So, because you don't like laws named after victims which inspire people to take action, we should change to fit Europe. And, if the biased site has a good point, why not use it? Why don't you pull yourself from your bias and stop being such a Euro-centric hypocrit, okay?

Doesn't the fact that all nations in the world call America "USA-centric" tell you that maybe we are USA-Centric?

what do you know, you have not seen mush of my posts, because you are new here. i can tell from the fact you only have 8 post.

And, well, what do you know? You can't read what I wrote, because I am knew here. I said based on what you had just written. I know you are just trying to take away my credibility, but it won't work. I'm calling you on the hypocricy of your statement. I have no problem with Europeans. I have problems with self-centrists. That includes Americans who think they can prescribe to Europe what to do.

Rapists should be castrated without anesthesia, lobotomized, have the word "RAPIST" branded into their forehead, and then released.

You scared me there for a little bit.....:eek: .........I'm better now....;)

Sorry, I hoped the quote marks and the general craziness of the rant showed my sarcasm. Didn't mean to frighten. :)

This Law just happened to be passed and named in remembrance and full support of Jessica's Family. As for the "biased" site, all that Bill O'Reilly is doing is showing the map who have passed similar laws for the protection of our Young, Is it that bad to name of Law after somebody? Is it that bad to show a map of states which are doing something to better protect the children and also to show the ones not doing anything or that are inconclusive?

What are you on? Or do you just like to go around attempting to start stuff?

If you don't like the post then don't POST.....geez.
hello. the map key says "right direction" and "wrong direction". the whole thing is a mere opinion, so i will treat it as that.

This was on the ballot here in California...Prop 83.

I voted against it.

Who gets the contract on making all those GPS ankle bracelets for the 'sex offenders' to wear, eh?

Anyway. We have a state legislature that is meant to make such decisions, so that the unwashed masses, as it were, don't have to delve into complicated legal matters.

And I'm SO tired of naming legislation after child murder victims! I don't care what their families think, it's cheap pandering that causes voters to make kneejerk emotional decisions instead of actually thinking about issues.

Doesn't the fact that all nations in the world call America "USA-centric" tell you that maybe we are USA-Centric?

I agree, we probably are, but how is that applicable here? Are we only supposed to post topics that apply to the whole world? If the people from other parts of the world are not interested in the happenings in the United States or do not care for how we name our laws, they don't need to partake of the topic. So, he can participate in the discussion, but he doesn't have to make it into an anti-American thing based on a stance against child-rapists.

And, well, what do you know? You can't read what I wrote, because I am knew here. I said based on what you had just written. I know you are just trying to take away my credibility, but it won't work. I'm calling you on the hypocricy of your statement. I have no problem with Europeans. I have problems with self-centrists. That includes Americans who think they can prescribe to Europe what to do.

tell me in detail why you consider me a hypocrite.

I'm not a fan of mandatory minimums at all... So I can't say that I support this particular piece of legislation.

hello. the map key says "right direction" and "wrong direction". the whole thing is a mere opinion, so i will treat it as that.

HELLO.......right direction means getting tougher penalties for the child predators for example here in Florida it's a minimum of 25 yrs for victims under 12.........wrong direction means giving the convicted child predators and rapists lets say 2 months or less

You tell me what the right direction is and what the wrong direction is

I'll post another reply in a couple minutes to prove the point of right and wrong and no worries I won't be getting it from the "biased" map...

HELLO.......right direction means getting tougher penalties for the child predators for example here in Florida it's a minimum of 25 yrs for victims under 12.........wrong direction means giving the convicted child predators and rapists lets say 2 months or less
i don't care what it means.

This was on the ballot here in California...Prop 83.

I voted against it.

Who gets the contract on making all those GPS ankle bracelets for the 'sex offenders' to wear, eh?

Anyway. We have a state legislature that is meant to make such decisions, so that the unwashed masses, as it were, don't have to delve into complicated legal matters.

And I'm SO tired of naming legislation after child murder victims! I don't care what their families think, it's cheap pandering that causes voters to make kneejerk emotional decisions instead of actually thinking about issues.

The Founding Fathers would be proud of you, sir.

This was on the ballot here in California...Prop 83.

I voted against it.

Who gets the contract on making all those GPS ankle bracelets for the 'sex offenders' to wear, eh?

Anyway. We have a state legislature that is meant to make such decisions, so that the unwashed masses, as it were, don't have to delve into complicated legal matters.

And I'm SO tired of naming legislation after child murder victims! I don't care what their families think, it's cheap pandering that causes voters to make kneejerk emotional decisions instead of actually thinking about issues.


and you have every right for your opinion on the matter.....I disagree....I think it's an appropriate measure as long as the families agree and okay it.

and you have every right for your opinion on the matter.....I disagree....I think it's an appropriate measure as long as the families agree and okay it.

so when an american gives there opinion youre okay with it, but when I european gives their opinion you flame them. what's wrong with u?

so when an american gives there opinion youre okay with it, but when I european gives their opinion you flame them. what's wrong with u?

Come now; you know that's not the case. At least he didn't flame you saying you were a "European-Centric hypocrite".

Come now; you know that's not the case. At least he didn't flame you saying you were a "European-Centric hypocrite".

yeah, that was some other guy. but still, this guy has a history of treating americans better then non-americans,

so when an american gives there opinion youre okay with it, but when I european gives their opinion you flame them. what's wrong with u?

I'm not the one whose prejudiced of others such as you and your anti-Americanism. That's your problem not mine. I do not feel that I flamed you. If you don't want to participate in this topic you really should go elsewhere. If anything, you are the flame-baiter.

This Post is about "Jessica's Law" In no way is it intended to be yet another anti-America thread of hate.

I'm not the one whose prejudiced of others such as you and your anti-Americanism. That's your problem not mine. I do not feel that I flamed you. If you don't want to participate in this topic you really should go elsewhere. If anything, you are the flame-baiter.

This Post is about "Jessica's Law" In no way is it intended to be yet another anti-America thread of hate.

well, i don't see how labelling a website as "biased" is flamebait. am I really making any comments on your country.

tell me in detail why you consider me a hypocrite.

I consider you a hypocrit, because you said that by posting this it was USA-Centric, and, to give a contrast, you prescribed your European outlook on the naming of laws. You even went so far as to make it an American thing to name the laws after people, showing that you thought your European way of thought is superior, thus you are an Euro-Centrist. By being a Euro-Centrist you show a small level of hypocricy immediately. Then, you stated to not use a biased site as a link. Yet, you show a bias by simply dismissing it without giving it a fair look. So, you are a hypocrit for also being biased and disparaging the link for being biased. Does this suit you?

yeah, that was some other guy. but still, this guy has a history of treating americans better then non-americans,

I beg to differ.........I'm accused of a lot of things because I am most definately Pro-America and some people don't agree with my stances which as you and everybody else I have my right to my views.

I consider you a hypocrit, because you said that by posting this it was USA-Centric, and, to give a contrast, you prescribed your European outlook on the naming of laws. You even went so far as to make it an American thing to name the laws after people, showing that you thought your European way of thought is superior, thus you are an Euro-Centrist. By being a Euro-Centrist you show a small level of hypocricy immediately. Then, you stated to not use a biased site as a link. Yet, you show a bias by simply dismissing it without giving it a fair look. So, you are a hypocrit for also being biased and disparaging the link for being biased. Does this suit you?
i'm sure there are people in america who oppose naming laws after crime victims as well. it can't be just a europe thing.

i would like to ask you country to stop naming laws after people. and ask you not to link to biased sites, and be less USA-centric.

Unfortunately, though, you made it an American thing. See, you put up that distinguishing barrier. Critique on something besides how we should be less "USA-centric." It really didn't have a place in this topic.

I'm glad that Florida overwhelmingly passed "Jessica's Law" I don't feel that the laws should be more concerned with the criminal over the victim. About time the Laws act on the side of the victims.

If it were up to me I would give them mandatory Life Sentences and if they murdered the child to sentence them to death.

so when an american gives there opinion youre okay with it, but when I european gives their opinion you flame them. what's wrong with u?
He's King Ungracious? King Outrageous?

And I think this is another example of public laws that will be undercut when police budgets get slashed. yay, let's make another law: that'll solve the problem, with heavy penalty, in the tiny fraction of assaults we actually solve

This just shows that any thread or topic can and probably will turn into something of anti-Americanism......:(

hmmm......Interesting.......turning into an anti-King Bodacious arena......cool....I feel even more American now :D

This just shows that any thread or topic can and probably will turn into something of anti-Americanism......:(

Just because you let it.

Just because you let it.

Your right....I fed into it. I'll do my best not feed into the hate and anti-garbage stuff no more. It just frustrates me sometimes but I'll definately work on it,

I think that the best thing to do to pedophiles is either jail time and/or castration. Jail time for consensual, castration for rape.

You're right! We must strike first against the Europeans! I'll show them I'm not USA-Centric! (I'm being sarcastic ;) )

Back on topic..........I think that if the states that aren't enacting tougher laws against these brutal criminals then the Federal Government needs to take charge and implement this under Federal Law and give the convicted sex offenders the mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years imprisonment, and of course the Death Penalty for the murders of these children.

Yeah, I was carried there. I completely agree that there should be minimum sentences. Rehabilitation would be great, but, unfortunately, it is very effective in many of these cases. It has to be an instance in which the sick individual wants to be cured. Maybe tough laws will provide more of an incentive to get help before it leads to victimizing a poor child. The prison system is supposed to a system of rehabilitation AND disincentive, so rehabilitation alone fails in that sense, too.

The law does look unworkable to me. The resources needed to enforce it are unlikely to be forthcoming.

Also, I think it's important to note that the purpose of a justice system is to minimise crime, and that rehabilitation needs to feature largely in any such effort. It should be a matter of principal that when a person has served their sentence, they have cleared their debt to society because this facilitates rehabilitation (this is one reason why I find it odd that in some states people convicted of felonys can never vote even when their sentence is finished).

That being the case, if there is to be monitoring of sex-offenders in the community, then I would be much happier if this were to be arranged in such a way that they remained 'in custody' and were in fact still (legally) carrying out their sentence. I'm not comfortable with any punishment that takes place at the completion of sentencing.

Sex offenders are a particularly problematic issue. We ought not compromise our justice-systems simply to cater to them, but we also need to be pro-active in preventing such crimes. One thing does seem clear, a complex issue like this cannot be resolved with hasty and ill-conceived knee-jerk legislation designed more to make it look like something is being done, than to actually get anything constructive done.

Back on topic..........I think that if the states that aren't enacting tougher laws against these brutal criminals then the Federal Government needs to take charge and implement this under Federal Law and give the convicted sex offenders the mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years imprisonment, and of course the Death Penalty for the murders of these children.

Better just to give these "people" life imprisonment and then toss them into the general population.

Well, in Michigan, we've had similar legislation for a while, now. It's functioning and making a difference. 14 men across the state were just arrested by using the monitoring system. For those who say it cannot be afforded: I think it's worth a sacrifice in something else to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Better just to give these "people" life imprisonment and then toss them into the general population.

I think you may be right. It would probably save the tax payers a good bit of money by tossing them in with the general population. I like the ideas of making them wear the t-shirts saying that they're sex offenders and predators and then toss them in with general population.

For those who are saying it costs to much.....I ask you what price will you pay to save just one 8 year old child?

There is no price to high to pay that will protect our children.

As much as I despise pedophiles (I advocate the death penalty for major offenders) I have to agree with the anti-Jessica's Law advocates on this one. The fact of the matter is that the law is simply ineffective; it has several clauses that render it useless.

First, it forces the government to monitor sex offenders through GPS for extremely long periods of time. Not only does this not actually prevent any sexual offenses (nothing stops a predator from luring kids from areas not restricted by the measure), it costs the state a tremendous amount of money. Guess where this money will be taken out of? That's right: prison housing and rehabilitation programs, both of which are far more effective. (Cost wise, GPS monitoring is more expensive than prison housing, and lets criminals loose.)

Second, it creates "offender clusters." Because the law restricts where criminals can live, you end up creating massive concencrations of sex offenders in one area, which destroys property values and horribly endangers children.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it doesn't address the root problem. The overwhelming majority of molestations are committed by those who are closely connected to the child, such as family members or teachers. These measures wouldn't prevent any sort of molestation, because they fail to take into account the major staging point for these crimes: private homes.

Jessica's law has good intentions, yes, but as Dante once said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." These good intentions are only worsening an already tragic situation.

The Founding Fathers would be proud of you, sir.

Ma'am. :) But really, even though I'm really VERY liberal, I...think this country functions better as a republic than as a democracy.

For those who are saying it costs to much.....I ask you what price will you pay to save just one 8 year old child?

There is no price to high to pay that will protect our children.
That's ludicrous. Some of those eight years olds will die young due to pollutants pumped out by cars, industry, etc, if no price is too high in your mind, I await your thread demanding that these things be banned.

What good is protecting one child if the cost is to that child and all others in terms of their eduction, their health, or some other vital thing?

The fact is, whether you or I think no price is too high or not, we dont get to set the budgets. The point is, whether or not the cost is too high, there is barely any chance at all that the resources will be made available by those with the power to make them available.

That's why kids that law-enforcement cannot find have been found by tv programs (Dr Phil of all folk), and child sex offenders that law-enforcement cannot find have been found by tv programs (Phil's mate Oprah). It's not that tv programs are necessarily better at investigative work than law-enforcement, it's that they have more resources.

Since we can already conclude from the fact that findable missing children and findable offenders are not being found with the resources available to law enforcement, what on earth makes you imagine that passing this law will suddenly loosen the purse strings? Further if the purse-strings are to be loosened, doesnt it make more sense to use extra resources to rescue missing children, and catch sex offenders currently 'at large' than it does to spend them on punishing said sex-offenders if they finally are caught?

I personally think that they should all atleast recieve mandatory life sentences and for the more severe and brutal cases should be hanged or put in front of a firing squad.

I think Jessica's Law is a horrible waste. If you think pedophiles (or paedophiles or however you want to spell it) should be locked away and forgotten forever, then get the sentencing guidelines themselves changed to reflect that. Otherwise, if someone has served his/her time by completing a court's sentence, s/he has paid his debt to society. Period. (Yes, I say this as a father.)

People think of crap like Jessica's law to get those who have already paid their debts in order to retroactively re-punish offenders, and THAT is a precedent I think is disgusting.

People think of crap like Jessica's law to get those who have already paid their debts in order to retroactively re-punish offenders, and THAT is a precedent I think is disgusting.
I completely agree. When the sentence is served, the debt is paid.

Many sex offenders are known to repeat their crimes after serving their sentence. That's why they have monitoring afterwards. Do you really think this is simply about a debt? It is also for preventative purposes.

Many sex offenders are known to repeat their crimes after serving their sentence. That's why they have monitoring afterwards. Do you really think this is simply about a debt? It is also for preventative purposes.

Punitive =/= Preventative.

Justice used to mean evidence of a crime, a trial, and a punishment if found guilty. The person was supposedly given a clean slate afterward. That may have been a pretense, but a noble one. We've dropped all that, though. We're gonna "get 'im" for stuff we're pretty sure he's gonna try at some point.

Well, how apt would you be to commit a terrible crime if you knew you were being monitored? It works as an effective deterent. If you want to go into what justice used to mean for child molesters and rapists, it meant being put to death. So, yeah, it is fairly hard to carry out further punishment beyond that. Why is it that you cannot see the preventative aspect of it? Besides, if they don't break the law, how does the monitoring affect them? I understand a right to privacy, but I believe that right is forfeited when such an act is committed.

All this talk has got me hungry for coleslaw.

Well, how apt would you be to commit a terrible crime if you knew you were being monitored? It works as an effective deterent. If you want to go into what justice used to mean for child molesters and rapists, it meant being put to death. So, yeah, it is fairly hard to carry out further punishment beyond that. Why is it that you cannot see the preventative aspect of it? Besides, if they don't break the law, how does the monitoring affect them? I understand a right to privacy, but I believe that right is forfeited when such an act is committed.
I dont believe that rights ought to be forfeited for a time that supercedes the sentence. I do believe in prevention to an extent, that extent is superceded when important premises of the justice system (such as sentence served = debt paid) are dispensed with.

I'm not convinced that if the law applied nation-wide that the resources to enforce it would be forthcoming. As I've pointed out, there are not enough resources to enforce the laws that do exist. Until we've properly resourced the enforcement of existing laws, we dont know if this law is necessary and we ought have no confidence it will be enforced. That given, it has not been demonstrated as worth the loss of a founding premise of the justice system.

And watch out for the Ebil paedophiles there everywhere you know and if we kill all the paedophiles now the problem will not exist in the future!:rolleyes:

I was just looking at this, again, and it still urks me. I'm trying to be as respectful as I can in this, and I'm trying not to diminish you:

Using exagerations and speech impediments is not the way to win over people in something as graven as child molestation. In fact, it comes off as being very incensitive and heartless. Please refrain from such.

I dont believe that rights ought to be forfeited for a time that supercedes the sentence. I do believe in prevention to an extent, that extent is superceded when important premises of the justice system (such as sentence served = debt paid) are dispensed with.

I'm not convinced that if the law applied nation-wide that the resources to enforce it would be forthcoming. As I've pointed out, there are not enough resources to enforce the laws that do exist. Until we've properly resourced the enforcement of existing laws, we dont know if this law is necessary and we ought have no confidence it will be enforced. That given, it has not been demonstrated as worth the loss of a founding premise of the justice system.

I do believe our justice system was also founded to protect the victim, so does the victimizer's right win out? I sincerely hope not. If it makes you feel better, think of the monitoring as part of the sentencing, as it is. Why can't the sentencing extend beyond the prison time? Do you have a problem with probation, too? Probation's ussually part of a sentence, as well.

As I stated, in Michigan, there is proof of the enforcement of a similar law, in which 14 men were recently arrested. Why is it supposed that the funding would have to come from the prison system? As the costs increase, they can reappropriate funding from more unnecessary governmental programs. (It's a shocker, but they do exist) I am basing this off of my experiences in Michigan, but they are all that I can from personal experience. Plus, that seems to be more than is being supplied by most others in terms of experience.

jessica's law is a pointless stopgap. dangerous paedophiles shouldnt be out of prison ever, or even allowed to live. jessicas law simply prevents the ones who want to be rehabilitated from ever living a normal life, and forces the others underground, away from authority and any control.

I do believe our justice system was also founded to protect the victim, so does the victimizer's right win out?
Non sequitor. I believe that if the underlying premises of the justice system are compromised everyone is effected. So it's my rights, and the right of anyone and everyone who ever lives or comes within the jurisdiction for any period of time.

I sincerely hope not. If it makes you feel better, think of the monitoring as part of the sentencing, as it is. Why can't the sentencing extend beyond the prison time? Do you have a problem with probation, too? Probation's ussually part of a sentence, as well.
If all you've got is strawmen, I'll have to doubt the strength of any argument that relies on them. I've already commented to contrary. Why are you asking me questions that rely on excluded premises if you've something more robust to be going on with?

As I stated, in Michigan, there is proof of the enforcement of a similar law, in which 14 men were recently arrested. Why is it supposed that the funding would have to come from the prison system? As the costs increase, they can reappropriate funding from more unnecessary governmental programs. (It's a shocker, but they do exist) I am basing this off of my experiences in Michigan, but they are all that I can from personal experience. Plus, that seems to be more than is being supplied by most others in terms of experience.
Where do you get prison system from? Certainly not from my comments. If you continue to argue with imaginary comments I never made, I'll be less interested in conversing with you.

I've already demonstrated that there are not currently enough resources put into finding and rescuing currently missing children (to the point where findable children are being found by tv personalities like Dr Phil), and not enough resources put into finding sex-offenders who offend against children (to the point where some findable offenders are being caught by Oprah).

So with the laws we do have, there is a shortfall of resources, right now children who could be found and rescued are not being found and rescued due to resource shortages. Firstly why are these children currently being abused and tormented less important than these prospective victims who possibly would be saved, why are these offenders less dangerous than those who have already been caught? Secondly, what evidence is there that once the law has settled in and is not longer a 'headliner' that it will suddenly result in adequate resources being channelled where previously they have not?

I think that there are two operative things when considering any of the laws in this genre.

1)The state definition of "consent."

2)The judge's capability to interpret the law.

There are other factors, but they all fall into place AFTER these two are considered.

I think the law is poorly constructed but that's probably a result of trying to pack to many clauses in to please everyone. The breadth of the law needs to be narrow so that specific cases can be adressed as near individually as possible. I do not mean legislate something for each victim, but for each scenario, thus keeping the laws (as more would necessarily follow) concise, effective, and rarely able to be taken advantage of in legal situations.

This requires an active, responsible, multipartisan government, though, and I don't think America has that yet.

Non sequitor. I believe that if the underlying premises of the justice system are compromised everyone is effected. So it's my rights, and the right of anyone and everyone who ever lives or comes within the jurisdiction for any period of time.
I believe the same thing, but you seem to ignore the underlying principles setup for protecting the victim. Probation is setup as part of a sentencing (As I've already stated), thus monitoring can as well. GPS monitoring can accomplish the same thing as probation, which has already proven its merit.
If all you've got is strawmen, I'll have to doubt the strength of any argument that relies on them. I've already commented to contrary. Why are you asking me questions that rely on excluded premises if you've something more robust to be going on with?
They are rhetorical questions meant to elicit logical answers from you, and to find more completely how you feel. Probation and monitoring can and do reduce the act of repeat offenses. To get rid of probation would be a great disservice to society.

Where do you get prison system from? Certainly not from my comments. If you continue to argue with imaginary comments I never made, I'll be less interested in conversing with you. I've already demonstrated that there are not currently enough resources put into finding and rescuing currently missing children (to the point where findable children are being found by tv personalities like Dr Phil), and not enough resources put into finding sex-offenders who offend against children (to the point where some findable offenders are being caught by Oprah). So with the laws we do have, there is a shortfall of resources, right now children who could be found and rescued are not being found and rescued due to resource shortages. Firstly why are these children currently being abused and tormented less important than these prospective victims who possibly would be saved, why are these offenders less dangerous than those who have already been caught? Secondly, what evidence is there that once the law has settled in and is not longer a 'headliner' that it will suddenly result in adequate resources being channelled where previously they have not?
The prison system comment was a general comment. As for the finding of criminals, the tracking may in fact help, because they would be able to locate repeat offenders who are being tracked, and they may discourage more crimes from being perpetrated, decreasing the strain on the already underfunded source. The repeat offender is not more dangerous, but it may make it easier to stop the first time offender for the reasons I gave. The stricter punishment would also be a deterent for a potential offender. There is no evidence that guarantees that it will maintain the funding necessary after it is no longer a "headliner," but the fact remains that there is not evidence to the contrary, either.

This is a law that can make good changes, and to dismiss it on the sole basis of skepticism would be terrible. Saying that the system is screwed up, so we shouldn't implement new ideas is not good reasoning. Now, remember how I answered your questions, even though I answered them previously. I also did not resort to "strawmen" instantly, either. Being dismissive does not strengthen your arument.

I dont believe that rights ought to be forfeited for a time that supercedes the sentence. I do believe in prevention to an extent, that extent is superceded when important premises of the justice system (such as sentence served = debt paid) are dispensed with.
My feelings exactly.

As far as sentencing, I'm unorthodox.

Mental illness can be a reason for a child molestation if not many other instances of crime, but the crime is committed and mental illness is a reason not an excuse.

I don't personally believe in rehabilitation when there is an instituted law to begin with. That's the effect of a judge undermining the legal system for personal value (to some extents) and I can't say that I tolerate such action.

Personally, death sentence is my verdict. Any cases. I am a man; I am not God. I will forgive but I do not have the power to rectify anyone else. That is between them and God. Bless them all the same, but they deal with the law.

Rights mean nothing. Rights are to what we entitle ourselves and should affect the process of law but not the verdict. The verdict should only pretain to the case.

sorry if i seem a little out of the blue with my points.

1. I believe the same thing, but you seem to ignore the underlying principles setup for protecting the victim.
No, not really -- just rejecting the notion that the rights of the accuser supersede those of the accused. They must be equal, otherwise there can be no justice.

3. The prison system comment was a general comment. As for the finding of criminals, the tracking may in fact help, because they would be able to locate repeat offenders who are being tracked, and they may discourage more crimes from being perpetrated, decreasing the strain on the already underfunded source.
Again, by using a punitive technique to prevent a crime, you're creating an injustice. The pedophile in this hypothetical case hasn't committed a crime for which s/he hasn't already been punished, but you're using the likelihood of a repeat offense to justify oppression of a currently legally innocent person. (It's called ex-convict for a reason. ;) )

My question is this: how do you determine what is necessary for the criminal offenders? In a semi-utopian setting where no rights are infringed in the course of the trial, what should be done to a guilty offender?

sorry if i seem a little out of the blue with my points.

It's not out of the blue; I follow. The question in this case is whether the suppression of an individuals rights can extend beyond completion of the sentence handed down at conviction in order to prevent future crime.

Ha! I'm surprised to see so much purple in the deep south. :D

My question is this: how do you determine what is necessary for the criminal offenders? In a semi-utopian setting where no rights are infringed in the course of the trial, what should be done to a guilty offender?

I personally favor a progressive sentence based on the severity of the crime, up to and including life in prison without the possibility of parole. I also favor elimination of early-outs from prison (good behavior, turning state's evidence, etc.) However, I personally favor complete restoration of civil rights upon completion of the sentence.

No wonder I was having problems. I reread stuff, and I realized I was getting Pledgeria's and Zagat's arguments mixed up and was replying to both at the same time. You two aren't the same person, are you, because that would make things a little easier for me ;) .

No, not really -- just rejecting the notion that the rights of the accuser supersede those of the accused. They must be equal, otherwise there can be no justice.
Anyway-Pledgeria, what it seems to boil to is what is equal rights between accuser and accused. Obviously, I lean towards rights of the accuser, while you lean to the accused in comparison. We won't be finding common ground here.

Again, by using a punitive technique to prevent a crime, you're creating an injustice. The pedophile in this hypothetical case hasn't committed a crime for which s/he hasn't already been punished, but you're using the likelihood of a repeat offense to justify oppression of a currently legally innocent person. (It's called ex-convict for a reason. ) Unfortunately, I believe sacrifices must be made. I have to personally side with child victims in this instance, because, if you want to talk about screwing up the rest of the life, child molestation does just that. Also, I believe that they are referred to as sexual predators, not ex-cons. I think there is the distinction in nomenclature and understanding that they are still serving their sentence. Besides, if you truly prescribed to the idea that once time served is done, it's over, it seems you would also have to disagree with stricter sentences for repeat offenders (in anything).

No wonder I was having problems. I reread stuff, and I realized I was getting Pledgeria's and Zagat's arguments mixed up and was replying to both at the same time. You two aren't the same person, are you, because that would make things a little easier for me ;) .
You get used to it after a while. :p

Anyway-Pledgeria, what it seems to boil to is what is equal rights between accuser and accused. Obviously, I lean towards rights of the accuser, while you lean to the accused in comparison. We won't be finding common ground here.
I concur, and I can agree to disagree. That said, I lean toward the rights of the accused until the jury foreman says the words "find the defendant guilty." Then I say go ahead and nail his ass to the wall if need be. Pedophilia conviction should = life in prison without parole, IMHO. But again, IMHO, only for crimes committed after the new sentencing guidelines are set. As I said, I am a dad.
http://myspace-215.vo.llnwd.net/01380/51/27/1380837215_l.jpg

Unfortunately, I believe sacrifices must be made. I have to personally side with child victims in this instance, because, if you want to talk about screwing up the rest of the life, child molestation does just that. Also, I believe that they are referred to as sexual predators, not ex-cons. I think there is the distinction in nomenclature and understanding that they are still serving their sentence. Besides, if you truly prescribed to the idea that once time served is done, it's over, it seems you would also have to disagree with stricter sentences for repeat offenders (in anything).

Again, after the word "guilty" is handed down, all is fair game. I wouldn't use a previous conviction to deny bail on a new charge, but I would use a previous conviction in determining sentence after the trial. How about this: make lifetime GPS monitoring a mandatory part of the sentence for child molestation. Just don't make it retroactive to previous convictions.

You get used to it after a while. :p


I concur, and I can agree to disagree. That said, I lean toward the rights of the accused until the jury foreman says the words "find the defendant guilty." Then I say go ahead and nail his ass to the wall if need be. Pedophilia conviction should = life in prison without parole, IMHO. But again, IMHO, only for crimes committed after the new sentencing guidelines are set. As I said, I am a dad.
http://myspace-215.vo.llnwd.net/01380/51/27/1380837215_l.jpg



Again, after the word "guilty" is handed down, all is fair game. I wouldn't use a previous conviction to deny bail on a new charge, but I would use a previous conviction in determining sentence after the trial. How about this: make lifetime GPS monitoring a mandatory part of the sentence for child molestation. Just don't make it retroactive to previous convictions.

I think we may agree a lot more than we ever thought... Hmm... Kind of a shame the argument went so long. Oh well, I like to debate anyway. :p

I think we may agree a lot more than we ever thought... Hmm... Kind of a shame the argument went so long. Oh well, I like to debate anyway. :p

Meh, me too. :)

I believe the same thing, but you seem to ignore the underlying principles setup for protecting the victim.
You mean the underlying principals in the status quo, or the underlying principals in the legislation being objected to? Either way, I dont ignore it, in the first the principal of protection does not supercede the two premises that no one be punished except having been found guilty of a crime they have not yet 'cleared the debt' for, and that once punishment is served, the debt is cleared. The second has not been demonstrated to justify a change in that status.

Probation is setup as part of a sentencing (As I've already stated), thus monitoring can as well.
Aha, but I've already commented on this aspect. I do not object to some part of a sentence being carried out 'in the community', but I dont approve of sentences that have 'no end'.

GPS monitoring can accomplish the same thing as probation, which has already proven its merit.
The merit of probation is dependent on many factors, resources being one of them. Probation is evidently a portion of a fixed sentence that happens to be served in the community. Something I have already signalled is acceptable to me previously in the thread.

They are rhetorical questions meant to elicit logical answers from you, and to find more completely how you feel.
Er, I'd already made comments that made such questions obsolete.

Probation and monitoring can and do reduce the act of repeat offenses. To get rid of probation would be a great disservice to society.
Probation occurs when someone is allowed back into the community prior to having served the entirety of their sentence (in fact some people are sentenced to suspended sentences and usually are on parole for the entire time). It is entirely consistent with my position to cause people to report in and do other tasks associated with probation as an alternative to sitting in a prison. Probation is not an additional punishment, it is actually a lightening of a full-custodial punishment. That's why if you 'f-up' on parole you can be recalled back to prison to serve the remainder of your sentence. That is entirely different to an indefinate-never ending punitive status.

The prison system comment was a general comment. As for the finding of criminals, the tracking may in fact help, because they would be able to locate repeat offenders who are being tracked, and they may discourage more crimes from being perpetrated, decreasing the strain on the already underfunded source.
I see no evidence it will work that way. There is lots of evidence that these 'knee-jerk' legislative endeavours end in under-resourcing once the lime light moves onto something else. If protecting children were such a priority, then the finding of missing children would better resourced, likewise the capture of known offenders at large. This law wont make protecting children a greater priority. If protecting children is under-resourced now, unless you can demonstrate that this legislation will magically change the priorities of those who budget, you cannot argue that point. The fact is it is more likely to act as a 'sop' to the public who will 'feel' like something is being done, enabling politicians to point to the legislation as proof that they 'care' and are doing something while they meanwhile continue to underfund the protection of our children.

The repeat offender is not more dangerous, but it may make it easier to stop the first time offender for the reasons I gave.
The reasons you give dont stand up to critical analysis. If prison is not enough of a deterent, while would an electronic tracking system be?

The stricter punishment would also be a deterent for a potential offender.
I doubt it. Firstly, these people dont do it because they think they'll get caught. It's strange how it is claimed we need the measures you suggest because such people cant be rehabilitated easily, but apparently they can be rehabilitated prior to their crimes simply through the knowledge of harsher sentences...I'm not buying.

There is no evidence that guarantees that it will maintain the funding necessary after it is no longer a "headliner," but the fact remains that there is not evidence to the contrary, either.
There is evidence to the contrary. The priority that currently applies to funding and resourcing of enforcing child protection laws is an evidence in itself. If politicians and budget-setters cared, they would have sorted that problem out years ago. They seem to care now because of the public hype. Once the legislation is established the hype goes away, the politicos and budget-setters cease to pretend they care. If these people with the power to provide the resources had the will to do so, we'd already have adequately resourced child protection. As it is we dont even know if the legislation is needed. Perhaps if with the current laws were enforced with adequate resources, the problems cited as needing the legislation wouldnt exist. Until current laws are properly resourced, I dont know that we even need additional (probably underfunded) legislation. I do know that if those capable of fronting up the resources had the will to do so, I couldnt state that the current protection of children is under-resourced, so there is your evidence.

This is a law that can make good changes, and to dismiss it on the sole basis of skepticism would be terrible.
This is a law I dont see will necessary do as much good as harm. When it comes to legislation it is better to err on the side of caution. Before I would support such a law I'd need evidence that protecting children was a polticial priority rather than merely a PR exercise. I do not see that the justice-system and its main premises should be undermined in order to bring in something that might not be needed were children to be priortised under the current law and which wont work if they are not sufficiently priortised. Currently, aside from 'easy' PR exercises (such as legislation X) children are not a priority, unless they are this law wont work to an acceptable level.


that the system is screwed up, so we shouldn't implement new ideas is not good reasoning.
I'll keep that in mind if I ever hear anyone argue it.

Now, remember how I answered your questions, even though I answered them previously. I also did not resort to "strawmen" instantly, either. Being dismissive does not strengthen your arument.
You have not answered all my questions, you've dismissed some for instance as not being evidenced one way or the other. You wish to argue for a change from the status quo the onus is on you to demonstrate the worth of doing so.

It's not ok to argue 'you cant prove it will be underfunded' when not only is there evidence it will be underfunded, but further you are arguing for a change to the status quo and have the onus of evidence on you.
Unless you can demonstrate that it will be adequately funded, you fail to demonstrate sufficient cause to change from the status quo. It's not up to me to demonstrate that the status quo is better, you are advocating change, you need to prove it is better than the status quo. So far all you've got is 'maybes' and 'could bes'. That wouldnt be good enough even without the undermining of founding premises of the justice system.

[Edit: Sorry I cant help you out with the poster-mix up bit, I consulted the random voices in my head but none of them are called Pledgeria ;)]

I only scanned this thread...Valium has killed my thought process, so I really can't focus. sorry if this has been covered and I missed it.
Okay, Florida got the ball rolling and overwhelmingly passed "Jessica's Law" into Law.

I know a lot of you here don't like Bill O'Reilly but he has to be accredited for his strong Pursuit of getting other states to step up to the plate and get harsher sentences for the rapes and murder of our Children.

Here is a map of the Nation, which is color coded to show which and what certain states are and not doing with regards to protecting our children.

http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels;jsessionid=849AE5F9D714E8218E32799D40686C9C

More Info on the Jessica Law.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law

Now the states of Massachusetts and Vermont doesn't really surprise me none. I feel that they rather protect these criminals over the innocence of our children. Tennessee is a shocker, I can't believe they haven't taken the step towards better protecting our kids.

What are your opinions......?
First of all, way to stereotype about MA and VT. Please, get over it. there are just as many "red" states as there are "blue" states. Not to mention, it just makes you seem like an asshole.
And O'Reilly does a horrible job defining what is and is not progress, or what he means by "inconclusive"

It's a great law; states like Massachusetts will eventually accept progress.Why choose MA above the 9 other states selected?

Don't make fun of my state! It's just the fact that we have a terrible governer like Mitt Romney. People in my school could do a better job than that anti-gay, anti-stem cell research, uber-conservative guy.

I can't wait for Deval Patrick to take office...Hear, hear.

I live in Massachusetts, so I can speak from first hand experience here.

Here, they have the WORST laws in regards to sexual crimes EVER. Rapists are let out of jail early, or don't even recieve jail at all. Then, all that happens is that they're put into a different community where they can rape more, unsuspecting children. What the hell?!

And, the sex offender database is lacking a lot, so I've heard. Some people don't even register, and they don't get in trouble with the law at all!

And don't worry: the people don't like this. But, we know where to place the blame; Mitt Romney, Kerry Healy, and they're policies of anything-but-gays. They're too obsessed with stopping gay marriage and gay rights (just recently Romney is trying to force the people to vote to decide on gay marriage) that they don't give a hell about sex offenders, the Big Dig (which is wasting tax payers' dollars BIG TIME) or anything else. This is why Kerry Healy was murdered (metaphorically, of course) in the election.

Deval Patrick will fix things just like Bill Clinton did when he took his first term of office. The only question is whether or not Deval Patrick will be able to fix such chaos in the now-horrible state of Massachusetts. It's like asking a 9-year-old child to clean up the damage from Hurricane Katrina all by himself. The damage has been done, and not even someone like D. Patrick can fix it.Just a heads up, don't be surprised when the teachers strike starts. Hopefully, Romney will give something, or the teachers will hold off untill Patrick comes it...but otherwise, it is very much not out of the question.

[Edit: Sorry I cant help you out with the poster-mix up bit, I consulted the random voices in my head but none of them are called Pledgeria ;)]
Well, my voice gets stuck in a lot of people's heads. :p

Actually, I think that Jessica's Law is a foolish idea, and causes more problems than it solves.

1. It encourages pedophiles to be more secretive - not seek help.

2. It encourages people to think that they will know all the pedophiles in their area, and won't have to worry about anyone else - about 30% of sexual abuse is reported - so the ones that have been in jail are the least of your problems - the hidden ones, they're a real problem.

3. Some serious rehabilitative treatments, such as chemical castration are less attractive to offenders, because why take them to stop you if you're going to be persecuted anyway?

It's not out of the blue; I follow. The question in this case is whether the suppression of an individuals rights can extend beyond completion of the sentence handed down at conviction in order to prevent future crime.

I can't really speak for or about other states for they have different Laws and definitions but I can and will speak for the Great State of Florida...

We overwhelmingly passed the "Jessica's Law" giving mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years imprisonment. This sentence is primarily for those sex offenders who molest childs 12 and under. Part of that sentence is also to include wearing of the gps tracking monitor after they are released from prison. So NO I do NOT see how it is infringing on their rights when it is in FACT part of the sentence. Also note, It is a Felony, therefore they no longer have the right vote either, or do you consider this to be infringing on their rights.

As far as I am concerned, convicted sex offenders have NO Rights in my book and they all should be lined up and shot after they are found Guilty. The Laws on this subject, needs to be tougher. It's always been very sad and disappointing how a lot of these sex offenders get 30-60 days in jail and then released, they're supposed to register but a lot don't, when after their crime is committed against the child, it destroys the child's life for the rest of the child'd life. Ridiculous and about time the Law starts to recognize the rights of the victims over the convicted criminals.

i'm all in favour of super harsh punishment for child abusers. if they want to act inhuman, they will be treated like animals.

Umm... Okay, by what you've just said, you are being Euro-centric. So, because you don't like laws named after victims which inspire people to take action, we should change to fit Europe.


Yes, of course. Because Europe and America are the only places in the world that have people in who speek English

Yes, of course. Because Europe and America are the only places in the world that have people in who speek English

Actually, Swill is from Poland I believe. So, yeah, Europe.

i'm against the principle for reasons other people have stated.

A majority of child sexual abuse happens by someone known to the and trsuted by the family - someone who isn't on any lists anywhere and who's victims haven't spoken out because they are traumatized by uncle/aunty/granpa/dad/mom/vicar/pastor doing it to them

Stranger danger is not the threat to the nations youth that is reported in the national press - it is always and will always remain the friendly man or woman next door with the respectable job, or the repected community member or a parent, or a relative.

The number of children picked up off the street and abused by total strangers has remained relatively unchanged and compared to the other risks of victimhood fairly low.

Actually, Swill is from Poland I believe. So, yeah, Europe.

The person asked you to be less America centric, that doesnt automatically mean you should switch to Europe.

Most Experts do admit that sex offenders have a disease. Which most experts say that it is NOT cureable. I say to try to rehabilitate these Evil People is a complete waste of time and money. I'd vote for mandatory Death Penalty by firing squad after they recieve their fair trial and are found guilty, that is. :D Death to Sex Offenders. They are a stain on society. Harsher penalties for these horrindous crimes against our Children.

The person asked you to be less America centric, that doesnt automatically mean you should switch to Europe.

Uh, no, he didn't ask me.

Most Experts do admit that sex offenders have a disease. Which most experts say that it is NOT cureable. I say to try to rehabilitate these Evil People is a complete waste of time and money. I'd vote for mandatory Death Penalty by firing squad after they recieve their fair trial and are found guilty, that is. :D Death to Sex Offenders. They are a stain on society. Harsher penalties for these horrindous crimes against our Children.

i totally disagree.
hanging, not firing squads.
one piece of rope that work over and over again.

Uh, no, he didn't ask me.

He asked me......:D

I'm still not sure why. I thought the "Jessica's Law" would be a good topic of discussion. It had nothing to do with me being an American or about the USA at all. Simple discussion was my complete intent. And as for him to accuse me wrongly of having a reputation for treating foreigners poorly is just plain and simple, Ridiculous.

The only thing I can think of is when there's a subject on France, which I do have a tendency of generalizing the French. I mainly do NOT like the French government and therefore I may generalize a bit but hell the French aren't all foreigners of this great and much in need of help, World. I like the people of the UK, Australia, Cuba, Mexico, and most everywhere else. Out of all the countries in this world, there are a few I may be a bit bitter towards namely, the Middle East, and France. As a Free person, it is within my complete rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Last I knew I was still allowed to my right to my own opinion.

Personally I don't care for the law as is. (and this coming from a sexually abused kid)

If the offender is seen to be fit to enter society he or she should enter with full rights and privileges intact (or at least the minimum restrictions necessary)

If the person is considered as having a significant risk to society why the fuck are we releasing them back into society? I definatly support longer jail sentences and a tonne of rehab. If it does not work they should have their sentence re-evaluated and continue on from there.

Most Experts do admit that sex offenders have a disease. Which most experts say that it is NOT cureable. I say to try to rehabilitate these Evil People is a complete waste of time and money. I'd vote for mandatory Death Penalty by firing squad after they recieve their fair trial and are found guilty, that is. :D Death to Sex Offenders. They are a stain on society. Harsher penalties for these horrindous crimes against our Children.
You want to kill people for being ill?

On a far more rational note, Upward Thrust makes much more sense. If it is an illness, then those with the 'condition' ought to be humanly treated in a secure institution that deals with mental illnesses and they ought not be released until they are well. If they commit the crime because they are so unwell they cannot not commit the crime, then I dont see how they can be criminally culpable. Unlike in the prison system, we can demand proof of wellness before we release people involuntarily confined to mental institutions.
If it is not a matter of 'unwellness' then they ought to be treated as any other criminal. If criminals are getting away with 30-40 days in prison for a crime of this magnitude then that is a serious issue, but it is not an issue that necessitates 'Jessica's Law'. Minimum sentences can be lengthened without Jessica's Law.

Jessica's Law is a great law that should be fought for until it is accepted everywhere. May rapists, molestors, and other deviant scum of society pay for their misdeeds.

I can't really speak for or about other states for they have different Laws and definitions but I can and will speak for the Great State of Florida...

We overwhelmingly passed the "Jessica's Law" giving mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years imprisonment. This sentence is primarily for those sex offenders who molest childs 12 and under. Part of that sentence is also to include wearing of the gps tracking monitor after they are released from prison. So NO I do NOT see how it is infringing on their rights when it is in FACT part of the sentence. Also note, It is a Felony, therefore they no longer have the right vote either, or do you consider this to be infringing on their rights.

As far as I am concerned, convicted sex offenders have NO Rights in my book and they all should be lined up and shot after they are found Guilty. The Laws on this subject, needs to be tougher. It's always been very sad and disappointing how a lot of these sex offenders get 30-60 days in jail and then released, they're supposed to register but a lot don't, when after their crime is committed against the child, it destroys the child's life for the rest of the child'd life. Ridiculous and about time the Law starts to recognize the rights of the victims over the convicted criminals.

Should've read ahead (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11987105&postcount=87) of where you quoted me. ;)

But I stll say rights of accuser = rights of accused until conviction. If acquitted, their rights are still equal.

Oh the po childun, think tha po childun, oh my lordy think tha childun! The childun! fo the po childun!

You want to kill people for being ill?
-snip-


The Disease that is the sex offender.....Absolutely. They destroy lives, for the most part end up being repeat offenders. The only cure should be Death. So yes I would not lose any more sleep over these scum bags.

The Disease that is the sex offender.....Absolutely. They destroy lives, for the most part end up being repeat offenders. The only cure should be Death. So yes I would not lose any more sleep over these scum bags.

Well, God forbid you or anyone you know gets any sort of menal illness. "You've got depression, Ma? Lemme get my gun." Depression destroys lives, too. It also recurs throughout a person's life. It's treatable, but not curable. Same fucking difference.

Well, God forbid you or anyone you know gets any sort of menal illness. "You've got depression, Ma? Lemme get my gun." Depression destroys lives, too. It also recurs throughout a person's life. It's treatable, but not curable. Same fucking difference.

I specifically said the disease that sex offenders allegedly have can die and I wouldn't lose no sleep.

Show me where I mentioned depression or any other mental illness and show we where the hell I said to kill all mentally ill people.

I again, specifically mentioned the ones that are sick and sexually hurt a child deserves nothing less than Death.

To me it isn't the "Same fucking difference." To me, their's a big fucking difference.

Or do you like going around putting words in people's mouths?

The Disease that is the sex offender.....Absolutely.
If your earlier post was correct then the sex offenders have a disease, not are a disease.

They destroy lives, for the most part end up being repeat offenders. The only cure should be Death. So yes I would not lose any more sleep over these scum bags.
We know that lives are destroyed, and if it is a disease (in some or all cases) it's worth noting that one of the most common ways the disease is contracted is through being a victims whose life was destroyed. So a person's life is destroyed because they were not adequately protected and you advocate killing them for this?

If it is a disease, it is a disease of the mind. People whose minds are so diseased that they are compelled to commit acts that in the absence of such disease they would be criminally culpable for, ought to be humanly treated for the disease in a secure institution, until such time as they no longer pose a threat to others.

I advocate the Death of all convicted sex offenders who commit these horrendous crimes.

Rehab has proven to be ineffective for this sort of crime. To me, Death, should be the only option.

Zagat: To better answer your question.........Damn Straight!

I specifically said the disease that sex offenders allegedly have can die and I wouldn't lose no sleep.

Show me where I mentioned depression or any other mental illness and show we where the hell I said to kill all mentally ill people.

I again, specifically mentioned the ones that are sick and sexually hurt a child deserves nothing less than Death.

To me it isn't the "Same fucking difference." To me, their's a big fucking difference.

Or do you like going around putting words in people's mouths?

I chose the logical extension of your idea. Why is one mental illness deserving of death, but not another. Perhaps I think hypocrisy such as you have displayed here is deserving of death.... I don't, but if I did, I'd be no more justified in this idiotic stance than you are in yours.

Rehab has proven to be ineffective for this sort of crime. To me, Death, should be the only option.

How about a medically-induced coma for the rest of their life? That's an option that would isolate them from the actions of their disease.

I chose the logical extension of your idea. Why is one mental illness deserving of death, but not another. Perhaps I think hypocrisy such as you have displayed here is deserving of death.... I don't, but if I did, I'd be no more justified in this idiotic stance than you are in yours.

I don't feel that anything I said is on the grounds of being accused of hypocrisy.

To answer that question with a period.........To put it simple, life is not fair. It would be nice to have a world that was 100% fair but in reality it obviously isn't part of human nature. To me of all the diseases in the world, being a sex offender is the worst and in my eyes deserves Death.

How about a medically-induced coma for the rest of their life? That's an option that would isolate them from the actions of their disease.

Do you realize how much money that medical treatment would cost? I'd rather have them hang or in front of a firing squad.

I don't feel that anything I said is on the grounds of being accused of hypocrisy.

To answer that question with a period.........To put it simple, life is not fair. It would be nice to have a world that was 100% fair but in reality it obviously isn't part of human nature. To me of all the diseases in the world, being a sex offender is the worst and in my eyes deserves Death.

Fine, you win. Round 'em up. Seal off the drains and the doors. Pump in cynide through the shower heads. :rolleyes: Call it Auschwitz West.

You want to kill people for being ill?

Considering circumstance outside of action is what leads to unfair trials. Ill or not, the person clearly has not functioned in society and in one form or another must be removed from society. However you remove them is the point of new legislation and debate.

However, circumstance should be regarded in sentencing. That is the trouble with all of the trials: the trial, not the sentence. The sentence will fall into place after a decent trial.

Fine, you win. Round 'em up. Seal off the drains and the doors. Pump in cynide through the shower heads. :rolleyes: Call it Auschwitz West.

If you're talking about convicted sex offenders, I'd agree with that. :D

Why don't we mentally rehabilitate the victims? That makes more sense as far as to how we take advantage of our resources.

Here's what I think a sentencing should be for a convicted sex offender.

Kill or deport the offender. Whether or not he can, he did not function in society and needs to be expelled.

The victim will go to inpatient rehabilitation and psychotherapy.

If you'll notice, I mentioned that this is only "a sentencing." Sentencing is situational and needs to be regarded as such...to a point.

Certain situations, though, are not the same as a child molestation so much as they are technically defined so. For instance, a consenting 19 year old sleeps with a girl that told him she was 18, although she was actually sixteen. Statutory rape, by the definition.

Okay, Florida got the ball rolling and overwhelmingly passed "Jessica's Law" into Law.

I know a lot of you here don't like Bill O'Reilly but he has to be accredited for his strong Pursuit of getting other states to step up to the plate and get harsher sentences for the rapes and murder of our Children.

Here is a map of the Nation, which is color coded to show which and what certain states are and not doing with regards to protecting our children.

http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels;jsessionid=849AE5F9D714E8218E32799D40686C9C

More Info on the Jessica Law.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law

Now the states of Massachusetts and Vermont doesn't really surprise me none. I feel that they rather protect these criminals over the innocence of our children. Tennessee is a shocker, I can't believe they haven't taken the step towards better protecting our kids.

What are your opinions......?

I'm fiercely against Jessica's Law. As far as I've logically worked it out, it only makes convicted offenders more likely to re-offend.

Yes, of course. Because Europe and America are the only places in the world that have people in who speek English

Wow! Oh Snap! Got me! I should have told the guy from Europe to be less Afro-Centric. Maybe not... I think you may just want to try to pick on me... :(

Besides, sentences are archaic, anyway. Rehabilitate people. Make them useful to society again. If that takes the rest of their life, fine. If that takes two months, fine.

To heck with that. Rehabilitation? Weakness of the state to step in and take the appropriate action. Pandering to the pitiful whims of a pathetic populace. I would much rather see a good hanging--cheap, effective, and sets an example: don't do it. None of this "oh, you're a bloodthirsty murderer, but if you're sorry enough we're going to give you another chance. Try not to get caught next time, okay?" backwash.

Anyway, rant over.

Rehab! Yeah!

This is Bill O'reilly. He compared the Qu'ran to MEIN KAMPF. I don't think we should do ANYTHING he reccomends.

It's a great law; states like Massachusetts will eventually accept progress.

Fuck off, you stupid troll. You forget, you may be insulting those who live there.

Fuck off, you stupid troll. You forget, you may be insulting those who live there.

Relax man. Let's keep the flamebaiting to a minimum.

Fuck off, you stupid troll. You forget, you may be insulting those who live there.

Consider the irony of the only state in the US not treating gay people as second-class citizens being told it needs to accept progress.

Here's what I think a sentencing should be for a convicted sex offender.

Kill or deport the offender. Whether or not he can, he did not function in society and needs to be expelled.

The victim will go to inpatient rehabilitation and psychotherapy.

If you'll notice, I mentioned that this is only "a sentencing." Sentencing is situational and needs to be regarded as such...to a point.

Certain situations, though, are not the same as a child molestation so much as they are technically defined so. For instance, a consenting 19 year old sleeps with a girl that told him she was 18, although she was actually sixteen. Statutory rape, by the definition.

What the fuck? That is just nuts...one mistake and you die?

Okay, Florida got the ball rolling and overwhelmingly passed "Jessica's Law" into Law.

I know a lot of you here don't like Bill O'Reilly but he has to be accredited for his strong Pursuit of getting other states to step up to the plate and get harsher sentences for the rapes and murder of our Children.

Here is a map of the Nation, which is color coded to show which and what certain states are and not doing with regards to protecting our children.

http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels;jsessionid=849AE5F9D714E8218E32799D40686C9C

More Info on the Jessica Law.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law

Now the states of Massachusetts and Vermont doesn't really surprise me none. I feel that they rather protect these criminals over the innocence of our children. Tennessee is a shocker, I can't believe they haven't taken the step towards better protecting our kids.

What are your opinions......?



I do not like this law. It interferes with people's civil liberties. I know that these people are convicted child molesters, but this is too far. Waaay to far.

What the fuck? That is just nuts...one mistake and you die?

You would rather, theoretically, give everyone a chance at raping a child, and then just put them through rehab? Deterrence and punishment are much more important than giving someone a second chance at committing the same mistake.

Anyways, I believe that rape is completely unacceptable and I go with the Sharia (Islamic Law) on this one: stone the rapist.
Doesn't the Sharia law also prohibit women from giving testamony?

Don't many places also tend to stone the woman to death for engaging in premarital sex because she was raped too?

Doesn't the Sharia law also prohibit women from giving testamony?

Don't many places also tend to stone the woman to death for engaging in premarital sex because she was raped too?

Possibly, but he said he's going with Sharia law on this one. I find it unlikely he'd do the same in your cases.

Relax man. Let's keep the flamebaiting to a minimum.

Sorry, man. I have a bad temper. But I still say that MTAE is a stupid troll.

Sorry, man. I have a bad temper. But I still say that MTAE is a stupid troll.

You act as though we weren't well aware or something.

Possibly, but he said he's going with Sharia law on this one. I find it unlikely he'd do the same in your cases.
Well, in this case only boys would get justice for being raped, girls are still young women and can't testify, right?

i would like to ask you country to stop naming laws after people. and ask you not to link to biased sites, and be less USA-centric.

Ok, hold on, I'll have to start writing your demands down here....

Okay, Florida got the ball rolling and overwhelmingly passed "Jessica's Law" into Law.

I know a lot of you here don't like Bill O'Reilly but he has to be accredited for his strong Pursuit of getting other states to step up to the plate and get harsher sentences for the rapes and murder of our Children.

Here is a map of the Nation, which is color coded to show which and what certain states are and not doing with regards to protecting our children.

http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels;jsessionid=849AE5F9D714E8218E32799D40686C9C

More Info on the Jessica Law.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law

Now the states of Massachusetts and Vermont doesn't really surprise me none. I feel that they rather protect these criminals over the innocence of our children. Tennessee is a shocker, I can't believe they haven't taken the step towards better protecting our kids.

What are your opinions......?

That concept of letting child molesters out and having some false sense of safety because you tell the neighbors or make them wear a collar is assinine. If they are a possible risk to children they shouldn't be allowed out of jail.

The only possible thing that works for me to let these people out is chemical castraton, but I haven't really read up on it...

You would rather, theoretically, give everyone a chance at raping a child, and then just put them through rehab? Deterrence and punishment are much more important than giving someone a second chance at committing the same mistake.

It will hardly serve as a deterrent, since many offenders do not believe they will be caught when they’re committing the crime or right before, as most child molesters know the victim, and are situational offenders—people who are presented with a chance to release pent-up sexual frustration when they have no outlet for it because of marital problems or other reasons. And for the situational offenders, at the moment, they do not think about getting caught and thrown in jail for life or executed, so what good will harsh penalties do for them?

It will hardly serve as a deterrent, since many offenders do not believe they will be caught when they’re committing the crime or right before, as most child molesters know the victim, and are situational offenders—people who are presented with a chance to release pent-up sexual frustration when they have no outlet for it because of marital problems or other reasons. And for the situational offenders, at the moment, they do not think about getting caught and thrown in jail for life or executed, so what good will harsh penalties do for them?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor is any other washed-out reason for sexually molesting children (or anyone). You commit an act. That act is a crime. If you have sex "problems," and choose to be weak and give in, accept the consequences of your illegal actions. It's not a matter of believing you will get caught or not. It's a matter of knowing that it is illegal and that you will be punished if you are. String 'em up and string 'em high. If you're mentally incapable of restraining you're sexual urges, all the more reason for you to be removed by the state. Less of a threat that way.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor is any other washed-out reason for sexually molesting children (or anyone). You commit an act. That act is a crime. If you have sex "problems," and choose to be weak and give in, accept the consequences of your illegal actions. It's not a matter of believing you will get caught or not. It's a matter of knowing that it is illegal and that you will be punished if you are. String 'em up and string 'em high. If you're mentally incapable of restraining you're sexual urges, all the more reason for you to be removed by the state. Less of a threat that way.

It's not really good for deterrence to have harsh penalties such as death if the offender doesn't believe they'll get caught though.

That concept of letting child molesters out and having some false sense of safety because you tell the neighbors or make them wear a collar is assinine. If they are a possible risk to children they shouldn't be allowed out of jail.

The only possible thing that works for me to let these people out is chemical castraton, but I haven't really read up on it...

Or just castration in general. Eunuchs have been very useful members of society in many cultures.

Did anyone else stop to consider the possibilities of the Nationstates issue "Sex offenders 'cut off' from society"?

It's not really good for deterrence to have harsh penalties such as death if the offender doesn't believe they'll get caught though.

It's perfectly good for deterrence.
Whether or not someone believes they will get caught is entirely different than whether or not they can. You can believe all you want. The act is still illegal. Make the punishment fit the crime--not the criminal.

Or just castration in general. Eunuchs have been very useful members of society in many cultures.

Did anyone else stop to consider the possibilities of the Nationstates issue "Sex offenders 'cut off' from society"?

Have you ever considered the possibility of a false verdict?

Whether or not someone believes they will get caught is entirely different than whether or not they can. You can believe all you want. The act is still illegal. Make the punishment fit the crime, as the saying goes. Crime, not criminal.

The point is not to punish the guy, because that doesn't do anything but make his life worse and nobody else's better, thus net loss to society in general.
The point is to keep him out of the hair of society, and for that whether he believes he'll get caught is very relevent.

Have you ever considered the possibility of a false verdict?

Who's to say it's false?

Many doth protest innocence unto the grave.

If we stop to consider every possibility of a false verdict, we undermine the integrity of the judicial and legal process. Guilt or innocence should be decided through established legal corridors, and the sentence thus issued. If you are convicted, chances are you're guilty. After all, burden of proof is on the prosecution

Who's to say it's false?

Many doth protest innocence unto the grave.

And most people hold preexistant prejudices, especially in cases where Jessica's Law would apply.

Who's to say it's false?

Many doth protest innocence unto the grave.

If we stop to consider every possibility of a false verdict, we undermine the integrity of the judicial and legal process. Guilt or innocence should be decided through established legal corridors, and the sentence thus issued. If you are convicted, chances are you're guilty. After all, burden of proof is on the prosecution

Is that chance 100%? Because supporting the death penalty with less than 100% probability of guilt is tantamount to murder.

I do not like this law. It interferes with people's civil liberties. I know that these people are convicted child molesters, but this is too far. Waaay to far.

As far as I am concerned, convicted sex offenders (especially those of childs) should have NO rights including NO civil liberties.

For too long has the laws been way to lenient on these horrendous criminals. It's past time where the law turns around to hand out harsher sentences for those convicted of molestion a child. It's about time that the law leans more to the side of the victim than the sex offenders.

I have NO sympathy for those bastards, period.

In my Opinion: Child Molesters should be :mp5:

There is one easy solution:

LABOR CAMPS!

Take that as you will, but it truly is the most sensible punishment.

(The only one, really.)

Is that chance 100%? Because supporting the death penalty with less than 100% probability of guilt is tantamount to murder.

No, it just means that there is less than 100% that you're guilty. If you go through all the channels, and the evidence, as determined by the judiciary, stacks against you, then you're guilty. If you can't prove otherwise, that's tough. Start making things right with your creator. Cause in the eyes of the state, you done wrong, and you're gonna pay. Besides, who, again, is to say what is guilty or innocent? Isn't that the purpose of the judicial system--so that if after weighing the evidence, you are found guilty, that's the way it is. And besides, the majority of convictions thus determined are correct. Or maybe not. But if this is the case, let's not worry about the legality of anything anymore, because it's less than 100% perfect. Congratulations, welcome to humanity. What we've got is what we have, and it works.

And most people hold preexistant prejudices, especially in cases where Jessica's Law would apply.

True, and perhaps that's not a bad thing if it means a convicted sex offender doens't get cut any slack.

No, it just means that there is less than 100% that you're guilty. If you go through all the channels, and the evidence, as determined by the judiciary, stacks against you, then you're guilty. If you can't prove otherwise, that's tough. Start making things right with your creator. Cause in the eyes of the state, you done wrong, and you're gonna pay. Besides, who, again, is to say what is guilty or innocent? Isn't that the purpose of the judicial system--so that if after weighing the evidence, you are found guilty, that's the way it is. And besides, the majority of convictions thus determined are correct. Or maybe not. But if this is the case, let's not worry about the legality of anything anymore, because it's less than 100% perfect. Congratulations, welcome to humanity. What we've got is what we have, and it works.

Why be deliberately obtuse? Just because we can't convict everyone all the time with 100% accuracy doesn't mean we should sacrifice the entire system. But if we can't convict everyone all the time with 100% accuracy, then we shouldn't be handing out death sentences, if only for the fact that innocent people could very well be executed. Is it worth killing even one innocent person?

Why be deliberately obtuse? Just because we can't convict everyone all the time with 100% accuracy doesn't mean we should sacrifice the entire system. But if we can't convict everyone all the time with 100% accuracy, then we shouldn't be handing out death sentences, if only for the fact that innocent people could very well be executed. Is it worth killing even one innocent person?

Yes. Guilty before the law is guilty; else why do we have the system in the first place? Besides, better that one innocent person die so that the system is preserved than a hundred guilty go free.

Yes. Guilty before the law is guilty; else why do we have the system in the first place? Besides, better that one innocent person die so that the system is preserved than a hundred guilty go free.

Then I sincerely hope you become that one innocent person. No lesser irony would be sufficient.

Yes. Guilty before the law is guilty; else why do we have the system in the first place? Besides, better that one innocent person die so that the system is preserved than a hundred guilty go free.

This line of thinking implies equal representation under the law, which is not the case. If everyone had the same quality of representation, then it is possible to consider that those found guilty would in fact be guilty.

Then I sincerely hope you become that one innocent person. No lesser irony would be sufficient.

Then we are in accord. I stand by my convictions (yes, I am aware of the multiple meanings in this context). If I am destined to be that man, then so be it. It would take an enormous amount of highly improbable situations to produce enough evidence to wrongly convict me, and if enough evidence can be produced, then I am satisfied that the system is preserved and, more importantly, it works. I do not fear death. I can imagine why some paedophiles would fear reprisal for their actions, and it is all the more reason that they should receive the punishment due them.

I think this overlooks the real problem concerning "the po childun"

Before we go about gutting our legal system to fight "The War on Pedophiles," we should consider caning juvenile delinquents in public.

Okay, Florida got the ball rolling and overwhelmingly passed "Jessica's Law" into Law.

I know a lot of you here don't like Bill O'Reilly but he has to be accredited for his strong Pursuit of getting other states to step up to the plate and get harsher sentences for the rapes and murder of our Children.

Here is a map of the Nation, which is color coded to show which and what certain states are and not doing with regards to protecting our children.

http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels;jsessionid=849AE5F9D714E8218E32799D40686C9C

More Info on the Jessica Law.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law

Now the states of Massachusetts and Vermont doesn't really surprise me none. I feel that they rather protect these criminals over the innocence of our children. Tennessee is a shocker, I can't believe they haven't taken the step towards better protecting our kids.

What are your opinions......?
I'm pretty sure this wasn't the kind of opinion you were looking for but...

Am I the only one who finds it creepy when people talk about "our children," as if all children are a sort of shared resource? Why not just say, "protecting children"? Why feel the need to specify ownership (and shared ownership, at that!) of the children in question? Would it be wrong to simply protect children in general, even those which do not belong to Us?

I do not like this law. It interferes with people's civil liberties. I know that these people are convicted child molesters, but this is too far. Waaay to far.

How is giving these child molesters a minimum of 25 yrs sentence going "Waaay to far."? The child's life is now completely changed for the rest of their life. To me 25 yrs is too little considering that these bastards have sentenced these children for the rest of their lives which in most cases surpasses that 25 yr mark. If you molest a child, I say Death should be the only option.

Do you not understand that these bastards destroy these children's life and doesn't give these victims the Life they so much need?

I'm pretty sure this wasn't the kind of opinion you were looking for but...

Am I the only one who finds it creepy when people talk about "our children," as if all children are a sort of shared resource? Why not just say, "protecting children"? Why feel the need to specify ownership (and shared ownership, at that!) of the children in question? Would it be wrong to simply protect children in general, even those which do not belong to Us?

I simply stated "protecting our children" as a generalization. I was NOT talking about my nor your children for the fact that I have no children (unless I can consider my 2 dogs my kids, which I do. :D ) and I don't know if you have any children.

It is a point in a statement. Does it really matter how I phrase the question to get my point across? In some degrees, maybe. As for my OP, I think I did a fine job on getting my point across. "Jessica Law" started out being a Florida Law and now is passing throughout many of the states of the United States. So, I guess I used "our" as a reflection of America and abroad. I really don't think that it's that big of a deal and is nowhere's near anything negative in regards to "the children". Have a nice Day. :)

How is giving these child molesters a minimum of 25 yrs sentence going "Waaay to far."? The child's life is now completely changed for the rest of their life. To me 25 yrs is too little considering that these bastards have sentenced these children for the rest of their lives which in most cases surpasses that 25 yr mark. If you molest a child, I say Death should be the only option.

Do you not understand that these bastards destroy these children's life and doesn't give these victims the Life they so much need?

I understand ... intimately, as I was the victim for three years for one that is still FREE

That being said I would still rather see a rehab attempt as well as long term jail time (possibly with labor) then death.

I simply stated "protecting our children" as a generalization. I was NOT talking about my nor your children for the fact that I have no children (unless I can consider my 2 dogs my kids, which I do. :D ) and I don't know if you have any children.

It is a point in a statement. Does it really matter how I phrase the question to get my point across? In some degrees, maybe. As for my OP, I think I did a fine job on getting my point across. "Jessica Law" started out being a Florida Law and now is passing throughout many of the states of the United States. So, I guess I used "our" as a reflection of America and abroad. I really don't think that it's that big of a deal and is nowhere's near anything negative in regards to "the children". Have a nice Day. :)

Don't apologize for it. There is nothing wrong with it. If Bottle wants to pretend that she is not a part of this community, this society, this country, and she doesn’t want to take ownership for her participation and responsibility in it, then so be it. But the children are OUR children. We pay taxes, we vote for school programs though our government choices, we have child labor laws and child protection laws to protect OUR children, the children OUR community is raising are OUR children, we set the parameter standards by which the children will be raised.

WE determine what is acceptable methodologies for raising children or not. If my neighbor abuses their child and I ignore it because they aren’t MY children, then I am a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Society would be right to dismiss me as nothing more than a parasite on the rest of society that is trying to achieve their common goal by raising their children to the best of their ability.

Don't apologize for it. There is nothing wrong with it. If Bottle wants to pretend that she is not a part of this community, this society, this country, and she doesn’t want to take ownership for her participation and responsibility in it, then so be it.

I honestly haven't the faintest idea what you're on about with this bit.


But the children are OUR children. We pay taxes, we vote for school programs though our government choices, we have child labor laws and child protection laws to protect OUR children, the children OUR community is raising are OUR children, we set the parameter standards by which the children will be raised.

The fact that I pay taxes does not grant me shared ownership of anybody else's children, and my desire to protect children has absolutely nothing to do with who owns them. I desire to protect children even if I don't have any ownership claim to them whatsoever.

I am interested in protecting and helping children who are not supported by my tax dollars in any way. I would like to ensure safety, health, and security for young people even if they don't live in my community, or fall under the laws of my government.

I don't have any children. There are no children which are mine. I don't feel the need to claim ownership of other people's children in order to care about the welfare of those children.

WE determine what is acceptable methodologies for raising children or not. If my neighbor abuses their child and I ignore it because they aren’t MY children, then I am a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Society would be right to dismiss me as nothing more than a parasite on the rest of society that is trying to achieve their common goal by raising their children to the best of their ability.
My society has many goals, as it is composed of many different individuals. Some of these goals involve the rearing of children. Some do not. Many individuals contribute to society in ways that do not involve the rearing of offspring. I don't see why you need to insult those individuals, or their efforts, in order to protect or care for children.

Okay, Florida got the ball rolling and overwhelmingly passed "Jessica's Law" into Law.

I know a lot of you here don't like Bill O'Reilly but he has to be accredited for his strong Pursuit of getting other states to step up to the plate and get harsher sentences for the rapes and murder of our Children.

Here is a map of the Nation, which is color coded to show which and what certain states are and not doing with regards to protecting our children.

http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels;jsessionid=849AE5F9D714E8218E32799D40686C9C

More Info on the Jessica Law.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law

Now the states of Massachusetts and Vermont doesn't really surprise me none. I feel that they rather protect these criminals over the innocence of our children. Tennessee is a shocker, I can't believe they haven't taken the step towards better protecting our kids.

What are your opinions......?

You're on the worng site to post this. Half the people her are advocates of pedophilia being a ligitemate sexual choice, as some posters are already making clear.

You will find people like Swilatia who blather on about nothing and take any opportunity to make something about being too pro-US or just making a totally pointless post to irratate you.

Or people like Bottle who post anything that makes them seem Heady and above common society as if the last 10,000 years of human existence where each member of sciety recognized the need to protect the offspring of their fellows...as in that primary instinct called Species Preservation, not to mention a little thing called empathy---

In short King you are wasting your time as your supposition might sound a little conservative, or a little too Heterosexual, or Little Red White and Blue for the lot here...not that it really is any of those things...simply NSG is not place to post genuine concerns on genuine issues that really effect society.

You want a response post something about a criminal getting Tasered or a 50 year old gay couple not being allowed to be married....

The Rape and Murder of children wont even raise a blip on the Radar of 90% of the bags of shit that frequent NSG.

Save your energy for where it might do some good. Everyone knows this forum is for wasting time not raising awareness.

I honestly haven't the faintest idea what you're on about with this bit.
....

That's the primary bit. That determines the path your thinking goes after that, right from the get go you set up on an anarchistic isolationist path, an every man for himself outlook that justifies the rest of your ideology. You don't want to take ownership of the community's children because you don't take responsibility for your community, society, country and it's collective goal at all. You think you are separate from it and thus can't be held accountable for it.


As to the rest of you post, I simply reassert my previous post again.

Or people like Bottle who post anything that makes them seem Heady and above common society as if the last 10,000 years of human existence where each member of sciety recognized the need to protect the offspring of their fellows...as in that primary instinct called Species Preservation, not to mention a little thing called empathy---

Boy, I'm just getting a warm welcome this morning, aren't I?

Since you asked so nicely, I would be more than willing to explain the several reasons why you're wrong.

First of all, there is no instinct for "species preservation." Indeed, humans as a species wouldn't exist at all if there was such a notion, because true altruism is not an evolutionarily successful solution. Selective pressures act on the level of the individual, and thus survival instinct evolve to promote the interests of the individual. Sometimes the individual's interests happen to allign with the interests of the group, which is why you end up with social animals like humans (or penguins, or herd herbivores, etc), but this doesn't remotely equate to there being some species-level instinct. I can refer you to several biology texts for more information on this, if you like.

Second of all, empathy has bugger all to do with claiming to own other people's children. My entire point was that I find it creepy how some people seem to need to apply ownership labels to other people before they are able to care about them. I don't own anybody else's kids, but that doesn't stop me from empathizing with them and wanting to help them out.

Third, the last 10,000 years of human society have most certainly NOT reflected a unified desire to protect everybody else's offspring. Quite the opposite. Our societies seem far more geared toward protecting our own offspring at all costs, even if that cost happens to be born by other people's offspring. Now, some people extend their tribal boundaries a bit beyond their personal biological progeny, but it still reflects the notion that MINE is more important than NOT MINE.

Perhaps ironically, the use of "our children" actually tends to be more restrictive than inclusive, since it is specifying a subset of children toward whom our concern is directed. In other words, we are worried about our children, as opposed to their children. I consider that sentiment appropriate when refering specifically to one's own children, since the relationship between parent and child is different than the relationship between an individual and a child not their own, but when we are speaking broadly about the welfare of children in general I feel such tribalism is misplaced.

That's the primary bit. That determines the path your thinking goes after that, right from the get go you set up on an anarchistic isolationist path, an every man for himself outlook that justifies the rest of your ideology.

Again, I've gotta ask: what on Earth are you talking about?

Perhaps it would be best if you first explained what you think my ideology is.

Again, I've gotta ask: what on Earth are you talking about?

Perhaps it would be best if you first explained what you think my ideology is.

I don’t have to explain what I think your ideology is, you do it very well… Like here:


Perhaps ironically, the use of "our children" actually tends to be more restrictive than inclusive, since it is specifying a subset of children toward whom our concern is directed. In other words, we are worried about our children, as opposed to their children. I consider that sentiment appropriate when refering specifically to one's own children, since the relationship between parent and child is different than the relationship between an individual and a child not their own, but when we are speaking broadly about the welfare of children in general I feel such tribalism is misplaced.


YOU want to dismiss community by calling it tribalism and calling it misplaced. IF you wanted to replace what we can call “local tribalism” with a “global tribalism” outlook then I would be on your side (although thinking global efforts are currently unworkable, all the same they would be idealized good intentions, IMO).

But you are NOT saying that. You are advocating for the dismissal of ALL community ownership, the removal of ALL responsibility for the raising of the next generation if they didn’t come from our own bodies. You advocate an anarchistic individualist approach of every man for himself, and that way reduce all of the children in a misplaced effort to treat all the children of the world “fair.” If they didn’t actually come from my body, you say, I take no responsibility for them, even if they live in my community, society and country I take no more responsibility for them then if they lived on the other side of the world, it makes no difference to me. But I care for them all the same so it’s okay, as it seems to me that your end result would be.

I disagree with you and your goal. You simply try to pretend that you are not a part of the community you live in, and you try to take no responsibility for your community and worse yet, you try to discourage others from having a community outlook as well.

Boy, I'm just getting a warm welcome this morning, aren't I?

Since you asked so nicely, I would be more than willing to explain the several reasons why you're wrong.

First of all, there is no instinct for "species preservation." .

As usual Bottle from the begining you are wrong, as usual.
The Human animal and in truth all mamals have two primary instincts the first being Self Preservation--of Which I am certain someone as self centered as you has no shortage of at all.

The second being Species Preservation, of which you seem to lack, which appropriately enough makes a mutation, an aboration on the species, gentic garbage. Luckily you have not procreated with your defective genes.

You the mere fact that you can wiki article contradictions to Species Preservation instinct--exhibited clearly in most mamalian species shows you can operate google...hardly impressive.

How about you read some work that has been done inthe last ten years...to support the mountains of anecdotal evidence of the last ten thousand.

Pathetic.

And as far as empathy goes, the mere fact you dont even understand the idea of feeling pain for the suffering of children or their families only demonstrates the disgusting pathology of your psyche.