NationStates Jolt Archive

...because if, when released from prison, they're not placed where such families can keep an eye on them, they can disappear from view, making it easier for them to target kids. I'd rather know where my enemies are and rather them live near me so I can keep an eye on them, rather than they be placed nowhere near me so they can sneak into the area whenever they want, molest my kid, then go back to a place where I can't find them OR rather than my kid goes out of town one day, gets followed by a paedophile [pedophile] and I don't even realise because I've previously demanded that the paedophile is housed nowhere near me - so I can't keep tabs on him/her

Of all the places that sexual predators could end up after prison, the worst is out of sight, away from the scrutiny and treatment that could prevent them from committing new crimes. But communities around the country are taking that risk, with zoning laws that banish pedophiles to the literal edges of society...

Many offenders respond by going underground. In Iowa, the number of registered sex offenders who went missing soared after the state passed a law forbidding offenders to live within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center. The county prosecutors’ association has urged that the law be repealed, for the simple reasons that it drives offenders out of sight, requires 'the huge draining of scant law enforcement resources' and doesn’t provide the protection intended.

The prosecutors are right that any sense of security that such laws provide is vague at best and probably false. Just as it would feel foolish to forbid muggers to live near A.T.M.’s, it is hard to imagine how a 1,000-foot buffer zone around a bus stop, say, would keep a determined pedophile at bay. If children feel secure enough to drop their wariness of strangers, that would be a dangerous outcome. And of course, no buffer against a faceless predator will be any help to the overwhelming majority of child victims — those secretly abused by stepfathers, uncles and other people they know.

EDIT: Forgot link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sexoffe.htm

And what, pray tell, have you been smoking?

It's like it should make sense, but when you think about it your brain starts screaming "NO, NO, OH GOD PLEASE NO!" and blood starts flowing out of your ears.

You know, maybe it's best if pedophiles who actually commit crimes such as molestation are not released from prison for a very long time, and when they are, they are forced to live in supervised communities. Them and rapists. it would be so much simpler.

Oh woops forgot link http://www.religioustolerance.org/sexoffe.htm

I think they should be able to live where they want. Same goes for every other prisoner who's done time and is mentally healthy.

I think they should be able to live where they want. Same goes for every other prisoner who's done time and is mentally healthy.


There's a difference between that and what the OP advocated: actually placing them near families with children.

Shock collars might help. :)

Shock collars might help. :)

Or not. Read the article (plus note at bottom of it). Not enough resources for them to work.

There's a difference between that and what the OP advocated: actually placing them near families with children.

and a big difference between someone who is mentally healthy and a child molester.

Shock collars might help. :)

Or they might enjoy the shocks :(

and a big difference between someone who is mentally healthy and a child molester.

Child molesting isn't mentally unhealthy, just illegal and potentially damaging to the child. It's a little bit like rape, except without the ewww factor.

I propose we summarily execute all child molesters and rapists. Or place them in forced labour or something. Maybe we can convert their bodies into fuel, there has to be something useful they can do for society.

OK, I like your idea.

Now lets just find some voluntiers to expose their children to child molestors.

Anybody? We'll give you a nice tax cut if you do. C'mon, its only your childrens well being, after all! The little bastards deserve a little scare every now and then!

Child molesting isn't mentally unhealthy, just illegal and potentially damaging to the child. It's a little bit like rape, except without the ewww factor.

I propose we summarily execute all child molesters and rapists. Or place them in forced labour or something. Maybe we can convert their bodies into fuel, there has to be something useful they can do for society.

How barbaric.

How barbaric.

I'm sorry, I'm just a bit biased about this, I guess.

I'm sorry, I'm just a bit biased about this, I guess.

At least you admit your bias. :)

Child molesting isn't mentally unhealthy, just illegal and potentially damaging to the child. It's a little bit like rape, except without the ewww factor.

I propose we summarily execute all child molesters and rapists. Or place them in forced labour or something. Maybe we can convert their bodies into fuel, there has to be something useful they can do for society.

I suggest useing them as compost.

It would be nice if we kept child molesters in prison where they belong. Releasing them simply causes another child to suffer when the bastard re-offends.

Nevermind this insane idea about keeping the sickos close to children! I propose that if this idea ever comes to practice that we put all of the pedos near the OP's kids. Since he is so confident that it is better for both pedos and their potential victims I am sure he has nothing to worry about.

To the people who suggested the idea was stupid - have you actually read the article? By having paedophiles in areas away from families where tabs can't be kept on them, it makes it EASIER for them to abuse your kids. Stop looking at this emotionally and look at it logically. Sure in an ideal world they'd stay in prison, but it isn't and they don't.

and a big difference between someone who is mentally healthy and a child molester.

QFT.

At least you admit your bias. :)

Unlike the OP, who's probably hoping he gets placed next door to the Brady Bunch when he gets out of jail. "Mmmm...Bobby..." :p

To the people who suggested the idea was stupid - have you actually read the article? By having paedophiles in areas away from families where tabs can't be kept on them, it makes it EASIER for them to abuse your kids. Stop looking at this emotionally and look at it logically. Sure in an ideal world they'd stay in prison, but it isn't and they don't.

There are 5 sex offenders on my block, I don't feel safe and I don't feel like my kids are safe. I guess that's all emotion though.

To the people who suggested the idea was stupid - have you actually read the article? By having paedophiles in areas away from families where tabs can't be kept on them, it makes it EASIER for them to abuse your kids. Stop looking at this emotionally and look at it logically. Sure in an ideal world they'd stay in prison, but it isn't and they don't.

We are looking at it logically. In a logical world they'd stay in prison. Letting them out is the illogical or emotional part, perhaps driven by an underlying belief that sitting in a cell for 20 years tends to cure people of unhealthy sexual tendencies, which doesn't seem to make sense to me....

There's a difference between that and what the OP advocated: actually placing them near families with children.

I know there is but I still think they should be able to live where they want.

To the people who suggested the idea was stupid - have you actually read the article? By having paedophiles in areas away from families where tabs can't be kept on them, it makes it EASIER for them to abuse your kids. Stop looking at this emotionally and look at it logically. Sure in an ideal world they'd stay in prison, but it isn't and they don't.

And why can't tabs be kept on the pedos somewhere AWAY from children? It is merely governmental laziness that doesn't allow them to keep track of where these people go. I am not going to feel one ounce safer by instead of letting the wolf prowl in the darkness somewhere that I let him sleep right next to the henhouse instead. But people advocate stupidity all the time. We wouldn't be human if we didn't. Frankly, I don't understand what kind of "logic" you are using here.

Besides, people who advocate the release of these guys think they can "change", how exactly is that going to happen if they are surrounded by kids? The proponents of this will hopefully be ignored as they so rightfully deserve.

...because if, when released from prison, they're not placed where such families can keep an eye on them, they can disappear from view, making it easier for them to target kids. I'd rather know where my enemies are and rather them live near me so I can keep an eye on them, rather than they be placed nowhere near me so they can sneak into the area whenever they want, molest my kid, then go back to a place where I can't find them OR rather than my kid goes out of town one day, gets followed by a paedophile [pedophile] and I don't even realise because I've previously demanded that the paedophile is housed nowhere near me - so I can't keep tabs on him/her


The problem being of course that the law is not required to tell us parents if there is a peadohille living near. In fact t quite the opposite, they are supposed to protect the ID's of these people in case they are victims of vigilantes.

In reality though, yeah make them move closer, it will encourage the aformentioned vigilante attacks.

Unlike the OP, who's probably hoping he gets placed next door to the Brady Bunch when he gets out of jail. "Mmmm...Bobby..." :p

Not even funny. You might be aiming that at me, but every time you make a joke about sexual abuse of a child, you're effectively laughing at what has happened to the child.

I know there is but I still think they should be able to live where they want.

I never said otherwise.

Not even funny. You might be aiming that at me, but every time you make a joke about sexual abuse of a child, you're effectively laughing at what has happened to the child.

Nice try there, attempting to turn this around on me. :rolleyes:

Nice try there, attempting to turn this around on me. :rolleyes:

I'm not the one laughing at child abuse.

The problem being of course that the law is not required to tell us parents if there is a peadohille living near. In fact t quite the opposite, they are supposed to protect the ID's of these people in case they are victims of vigilantes.

In reality though, yeah make them move closer, it will encourage the aformentioned vigilante attacks.

1. The idea I suggested assumed that people WERE TOLD who the paedophiles were, otherwise they obviously couldn't keep tabs on them.

2. Vigilante attacks drive them into hiding and make it easier for them to abuse. I'd rather the public were able to monitor sexual offenders than they were hidden somewhere - "out of sight, out of mind".

Besides, people who advocate the release of these guys think they can "change", how exactly is that going to happen if they are surrounded by kids? The proponents of this will hopefully be ignored as they so rightfully deserve.
I don't understand why they should be released in the first place. I don't really believe people can "change". Asking paedophiles to stop molesting children is like asking straight men to stop having sex with women.

Not even funny. You might be aiming that at me, but every time you make a joke about sexual abuse of a child, you're effectively laughing at what has happened to the child.
The whole point of the internet is to laugh at otherwise serious topics.

Of course, I do that all the time and get mostly funny looks, especially when joking about topics such as death and funerals, suicide, rape, and so on. Some people either have no sense of humour, or understand something I don't.

1. The idea I suggested assumed that people WERE TOLD who the paedophiles were, otherwise they obviously couldn't keep tabs on them.

2. Vigilante attacks drive them into hiding and make it easier for them to abuse. I'd rather the public were able to monitor sexual offenders than they were hidden somewhere - "out of sight, out of mind".

1 The idea you had then did not take into account the law as it presently stands.

2 once people find out they live close to a pedeadphile, they WILL be attacked. As is evidanced by the one in the news a few weeks back.

I'm sorry, I'm just a bit biased about this, I guess.

So am I, I still dont advocate killing them all

The whole point of the internet is to laugh at otherwise serious topics.

Of course, I do that all the time and get mostly funny looks, especially when joking about topics such as death and funerals, suicide, rape, and so on. Some people either have no sense of humour, or understand something I don't.

1. The point of the internet, from its beginnings to now, is to share information. Now it is also for discussion, humour, and sharing things such as pictures, amongst other purposes.

2. You're one of those arrogant people who seriously pisses me off - the kind of twisted person who, every time someone doesn't find something something sick "funny" tries to turn it on them by claiming they have "no sense of humour" just so they can try to have their own way. Seriously, grow up.

Of course, I do that all the time and get mostly funny looks, especially when joking about topics such as death and funerals, suicide, rape, and so on. Some people either have no sense of humour, or understand something I don't.

You and I are going to get on famously, I think. :cool:

I don't understand why they should be released in the first place. I don't really believe people can "change". Asking paedophiles to stop molesting children is like asking straight men to stop having sex with women.

Actually, asking pedophiles to stop molesting children is not like asking straight men to stop having sex with women. I think we can all agree that straight men having sex with women is a natural physiological function, whereas pedophiles molesting children is, as you called it, an "unhealthy sexual tendency".

Unhealthy sexual tendencies can be corrected. Natural physiological functions cannot (although they CAN be repressed). While there are SOME pedophiles that can't be corrected and should stay locked up for certain, many can be rehabilitated and should have a chance at a normal life.

We are looking at it logically. In a logical world they'd stay in prison. Letting them out is the illogical or emotional part, perhaps driven by an underlying belief that sitting in a cell for 20 years tends to cure people of unhealthy sexual tendencies, which doesn't seem to make sense to me....

It's not so much the "sitting in a cell for 20 years" part that cures people of unhealthy sexual tendencies; it’s more the rigorous psychological conditioning throughout that time that does the job.

Isn't it interesting that child molestation touches more of a chord in most people than even murder does? Probably because, generally speaking, child molestation has a higher survival rate than murder.

1. The idea I suggested assumed that people WERE TOLD who the paedophiles were, otherwise they obviously couldn't keep tabs on them.

1 The idea you had then did not take into account the law as it presently stands.In the U.S., or at least most states, this is the case - people are told who the pedophiles are. This is how Smunkee knows who the ones close by to her are.

In the U.S., or at least most states, this is the case - people are told who the pedophiles are. This is how Smunkee knows who the ones close by to her are.

Funny, though, that we're not told when a murderer has moved nearby...

12. You're one of those arrogant people who seriously pisses me off - the kind of twisted person who, every time someone doesn't find something something sick "funny" tries to turn it on them by claiming they have "no sense of humour" just so they can try to have their own way. Seriously, grow up.

See, this is another example of the same thing. I make a sarcastic joke satirising exactly this phenomenon, and you throw up on me.

Also, I don't make "sick" jokes, at least not in my opinion. I know already that in terms of social interaction I am and always will be a total failure. On the EQ tests, which are supposed to measure your capacity for interaction, I scored 8 out of 100. And that's an improvement. I'm always told that some of the things I say are really more grotesque or twisted than humourous. That's part of the reason I don't actually talk to people in real life, because I know I'm apt to do that, so I don't say anything. It's also why I've posted so little in my three years here, because I don't want to say something that would get me that kind of response by mistake.

See, this is another example of the same thing. I make a sarcastic joke satirising exactly this phenomenon, and you throw up on me.

Also, I don't make "sick" jokes, at least not in my opinion. I know already that in terms of social interaction I am and always will be a total failure. On the EQ tests, which are supposed to measure your capacity for interaction, I scored 8 out of 100. And that's an improvement. I'm always told that some of the things I say are really more grotesque or twisted than humourous. That's part of the reason I don't actually talk to people in real life, because I know I'm apt to do that, so I don't say anything. It's also why I've posted so little in my three years here, because I don't want to say something that would get me that kind of response by mistake.

Heheh and I say fuckem!

we are not all alike, and we will never be so. Talk to the people that get ya, and the rest? Well as i say fuckem!

Funny, though, that we're not told when a murderer has moved nearby...That is odd, isn't it?

That is odd, isn't it?

No, not really. It's just legislators doing the "Look at me! I'm doing something to protect the children! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" thing.

Child molestation and rape are lesser crimes than murder, so a just punishment for them has to be less than that for murder.

Not even funny. You might be aiming that at me, but every time you make a joke about sexual abuse of a child, you're effectively laughing at what has happened to the child.

So a pederast and a little kid are walking into the woods at night, and the kid says "hey, i'm scared," to which the pederast replies "You're scared kid? I've gotta walk out of here alone."

Child molestation and rape are lesser crimes than murder, so a just punishment for them has to be less than that for murder.

Personally I respect a murderer more than a rapist or kid toucher.

Child molestation and rape are lesser crimes than murder, so a just punishment for them has to be less than that for murder.

Murder = once it happens, doesn't harm the person any more (though it obviously HAS harmed them and their family and friends)

Rape = once it happens, continues to destroy a person's life for years afterwards, so much so that some people see the only possible escape as death

Rape is definitely worse. Not done enough research on child molestation to comment on that.

Personally I respect a murderer more than a rapist or kid toucher.

Would you rather be raped or murdered?

Rather have your kids raped or murdered?

Rather be molested or murdered?

Rather have your kids be molested or murdered?


Thos gauge the crime in my opinion, isnt about respecting one criminal more than another, is about the severity of the wrong.

Murder = once it happens, doesn't harm the person any more (though it obviously HAS harmed them and their family and friends)

Rape = once it happens, continues to destroy a person's life for years afterwards, so much so that some people see the only possible escape as death

Rape is definitely worse. Not done enough research on child molestation to comment on that.

Would you rather be raped or murdered?
Rather have your kids raped or murdered?
Rather be molested or murdered?
Rather have your kids be molested or murdered?

The answers to those questions determine which of the crimes is worse.

My service to the community is to provide a handy little tool to find sex offenders near you...

http://www.familywatchdog.us/

My community service is providing this handy little tool...

http://www.familywatchdog.us/

Would you rather be raped or murdered?
Rather have your kids raped or murdered?
Rather be molested or murdered?
Rather have your kids be molested or murdered?

The answers to those questions determine which of the crimes is worse.

No, they don't. If I knew hardly anything about rape and was scared of dying, I would almost certainly say murder was worse. If I had been raped, I would almost certainly say "I wish he'd killed me". What makes one crime worse is the effects upon the majority of victims - which is why rape is worse than murder.

No, they don't. If I knew hardly anything about rape and was scared of dying, I would almost certainly say murder was worse. If I had been raped, I would almost certainly say "I wish he'd killed me". What makes one crime worse is the effects upon the majority of victims - which is why rape is worse than murder.

I was molested

I would have rather been molested then murdered any day

not to say molestation was a GOOD thing just that at least I got the chance to recover from it and do some good.

Funny, though, that we're not told when a murderer has moved nearby...

I know the criminal background of all my neighbors, it's public knowledge, I just have to go to the department of corrections website and enter their name, or their address, or their zip code, or their description.......it's really quite easy.

I was molested

I would have rather been molested then murdered any day

not to say molestation was a GOOD thing just that at least I got the chance to recover from it and do some good.

I was commenting on rape; I've no idea how many people fully recover from molestation, so I left comments on that out except to say that I'm not going to comment on it.

I was commenting on rape; I've no idea how many people fully recover from molestation, so I left comments on that out except to say that I'm not going to comment on it.

I would dare say less then the rape victims, at least according to the psychiatrists I dealt with said back in the day.

Funny, though, that we're not told when a murderer has moved nearby...

The recidivism rate for murderers is far less than that for child molestors, isn't it? Since murder isn't necessarily a result of something wrong with the brain itself, twenty years of life lost works rather well on people who can feel empathy. Granted, it won't work on sociopaths, but they're the ones who tend to get life.

I would dare say less then the rape victims, at least according to the psychiatrists I dealt with said back in the day.


And I would dare say that in either situation..NEITHER ever fully recovers. It is something that affects you for LIFE. You can learn to cope with it..but it will always be there.

And I would dare say that in either situation..NEITHER ever fully recovers. It is something that affects you for LIFE. You can learn to cope with it..but it will always be there.

very true.

...because if, when released from prison, they're not placed where such families can keep an eye on them, they can disappear from view, making it easier for them to target kids. I'd rather know where my enemies are and rather them live near me so I can keep an eye on them, rather than they be placed nowhere near me so they can sneak into the area whenever they want, molest my kid, then go back to a place where I can't find them OR rather than my kid goes out of town one day, gets followed by a paedophile [pedophile] and I don't even realise because I've previously demanded that the paedophile is housed nowhere near me - so I can't keep tabs on him/her

EDIT: Forgot link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sexoffe.htm

Uhh...what the fuck?

And I would dare say that in either situation..NEITHER ever fully recovers. It is something that affects you for LIFE. You can learn to cope with it..but it will always be there.

I never said any different ... I have lived that life every day

All I said is that damaged to me is better then dead

No, they don't. If I knew hardly anything about rape and was scared of dying, I would almost certainly say murder was worse. If I had been raped, I would almost certainly say "I wish he'd killed me". What makes one crime worse is the effects upon the majority of victims - which is why rape is worse than murder.

I disagree, no crime - short of some heinous maiming - is worse than murder.

Many people who are raped or molested go on to live fulfilling lives, making it a categorically less severe crime than murder.

I ask again, would you rather have your child raped or murdered?
Would you rather be raped or murdered?

And I would dare say that in either situation..NEITHER ever fully recovers. It is something that affects you for LIFE. You can learn to cope with it..but it will always be there.

You can't cope with being dead though. Your family can't cope you back to life, &c.

It is better to be alive and have bad memories than to be murdered.

Therefore murder is a categorically worse crime.

I'd just like to object to the use of pedophile and child molester as synonymous terms.

Pedophiles want to touch children.

Child molesters DO touch children.

Important distinction.

Why are we even justifying one over the other?

Oh. I thought it was to get rid of those fucking "BABY ON BOARD" signs.

Why are we even justifying one over the other?

Because one is a worse crime than the other, and that should be reflected in the punishment.

I never said any different ... I have lived that life every day

All I said is that damaged to me is better then dead


I took your comment as meaning that more rape victims recover fully than molestation victims. Nether does. Rape and molestation are damn near the same. Both are a violation upon a person that have detrimental side effects that last a lifetime.


You can't cope with being dead though. Your family can't cope you back to life, &c.

It is better to be alive and have bad memories than to be murdered.

Therefore murder is a categorically worse crime.


How a person copes afterwards is the key to whether or not they would justify being murdered than alive with the memories. Someone with no support system to help could live in fear and not able to function in society until finally that fear takes over and they would rather be dead. So they would say rape/molestation is the worse crime. Their life was taken from them either way.

I have lived with the bad memories because of the love and support I get from my family and friends who showed me that I can learn to trust again and that not everybody is out to hurt me.. So therefore yes..murder is the worser crime for me.

You can't say which is the worse crime unless you have lived it. Its all in each person's view.

So...since date-rape leaves no memories, it's okay?

I think we may need to reconsider our arguments. Badly.

So...since date-rape leaves no memories, it's okay?

I think we may need to reconsider our arguments. Badly.

Someone actually advanced such an arguement? :eek:

I'd just like to object to the use of pedophile and child molester as synonymous terms.

Pedophiles want to touch children.

Child molesters DO touch children.

Important distinction.

Anther way to say it is, a child molester is a child rapist. A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, but would not force the child into the act.

Someone actually advanced such an arguement? :eek:

No, they were talking about if it was better to be dead or be alive with memories of being raped. I just wanted to toss a wrench in and see how they handled it.

I took your comment as meaning that more rape victims recover fully than molestation victims. Nether does. Rape and molestation are damn near the same. Both are a violation upon a person that have detrimental side effects that last a lifetime.





How a person copes afterwards is the key to whether or not they would justify being murdered than alive with the memories. Someone with no support system to help could live in fear and not able to function in society until finally that fear takes over and they would rather be dead. So they would say rape/molestation is the worse crime. Their life was taken from them either way.

I have lived with the bad memories because of the love and support I get from my family and friends who showed me that I can learn to trust again and that not everybody is out to hurt me.. So therefore yes..murder is the worser crime for me.

You can't say which is the worse crime unless you have lived it. Its all in each person's view.

I might say that life simply isnt worth living without a certain shirt or pair of socks.

Does my individual reaction to those items being stolen justify that theft being punished commensurate with murdering me, or does some criterion beside individual reaction determine which crime deserves which punishment?

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Dave/comicpedophile4.png

How a person copes afterwards is the key to whether or not they would justify being murdered than alive with the memories. Someone with no support system to help could live in fear and not able to function in society until finally that fear takes over and they would rather be dead. So they would say rape/molestation is the worse crime. Their life was taken from them either way.
But they always have death as a recourse, so should they be unable to recover (recovery being better than death), they always have the option of choosing death to escape that suffering.

So, the expected outcome of molestation must always be better than that of murder, since the outcome of murder (death) constrains the molestation outcome at the lower end.

No, they were talking about if it was better to be dead or be alive with memories of being raped. I just wanted to toss a wrench in and see how they handled it.

Seems like a rather foolish question to debate to me. Alive, in just about any circumstance is better than being dead. Especially when you have support to help you through such a traumatic event. Besides, wishing death upon yourself is giving victory to the person who harmed you as you are now completely destroyed.

Would you rather be raped or murdered?

I would rather be murdered.

I might say that life simply isnt worth living without a certain shirt or pair of socks.

Does my individual reaction to those items being stolen justify that theft being punished commensurate with murdering me, or does some criterion beside individual reaction determine which crime deserves which punishment?

To each his own. If you think youd rather be dead than live without a certain pair of socks..thats your view.

Because one is a worse crime than the other, and that should be reflected in the punishment.

Punishment should be metered out to try and make people think about their consequences.

It's pretty fracked up if we sit back and say "Hey at least the kid wasn't murdered"

Both are bad. Period.

You know, maybe it's best if pedophiles who actually commit crimes such as molestation are not released from prison for a very long time, and when they are, they are forced to live in supervised communities. Them and rapists. it would be so much simpler.

I knew someone would suggest this before me. Good show.

Child molesting isn't mentally unhealthy, just illegal and potentially damaging to the child. It's a little bit like rape, except without the ewww factor.

I propose we summarily execute all child molesters and rapists. Or place them in forced labour or something. Maybe we can convert their bodies into fuel, there has to be something useful they can do for society.

I agree 100% percent with your second paragraph.
But how in the world is it not mentally unhealthy? Hmmm? Why no "ewww factor"???

To each his own. If you think youd rather be dead than live without a certain pair of socks..thats your view.

No, that didnt answer my question.

Your position seems to be that a person's individual resposne to being raped should dictate the severity of the punishment, if punishment is assumed to 'fit the crime.'

Your example was someone who would rather die after being raped.

My question, which you ducked, is whether or not this logic applies to other crimes, like theft, and why or why not.

Gee...why don't we go a step even further and not just place them near children but with children.
That way we'd need not worry about them going outside to meet any new victims to molest.

Gee...why don't we go a step even further and not just place them near children but with children.
That way we'd need not worry about them going outside to meet any new victims to molest.

True. As long as they don't kill the kids there isn't much of a problem.....

Why don't we just relocate them to designated pedophile areas?

What's the difference between rape and child molestation, isn't it the same thing. Child molestation is the raping of children.

There is a difference between groping and rape.

if you want 'em living next to you, so be it. there is no way i would want a sicko living in my neighbourhood ever again. there was a pedophile released from prison a few years back and he was relocated to a neighbourhood next to mine... he had been out all of 2 weeks before he decided to chase my 11 year old brother through the back allys in an attempt to get him into his truck. he was arrested shortly after while trying to pick up another young boy in a nearby parking lot.

keep them locked up, or under heavy supervision, not in my community.

There is a difference between groping and rape.

So groping a child is ok?....

So groping a child is ok?....

Dont post such stupid nonsense.

Was pretty clear that my post was in response to the one right above it.

Dont post such stupid nonsense.

Was pretty clear that my post was in response to the one right above it.

You are the one that seems to be defending it as the lessor of two evils.

You are the one that seems to be defending it as the lessor of two evils.

It is the lesser of two evils.

That doesnt make it "ok" by any stretch.

Why don't we just relocate them to designated pedophile areas?

Because we assume someone fit to be released from the prison system is fit to re-join society ...

If they are not ready to do such why are we releasing them?

Why don't we just relocate them to designated pedophile areas?
What? Like Catholic Churches, Scout troops or Trainspotter clubs?

What? Like Catholic Churches, Scout troops or Trainspotter clubs?

zing!

No, that didnt answer my question.

Your position seems to be that a person's individual resposne to being raped should dictate the severity of the punishment, if punishment is assumed to 'fit the crime.'

Your example was someone who would rather die after being raped.

My question, which you ducked, is whether or not this logic applies to other crimes, like theft, and why or why not.

When was I talking about punishment?

My comments were directed at whether or not being dead is worse than being alive after rape. Its all in the victim's view.

I ducked nothing. You assumed I was talking about something else and I assumed you were referring to what I stated above.

Because we assume someone fit to be released from the prison system is fit to re-join society ...

If they are not ready to do such why are we releasing them?
That's my question. Why are pedophiles ever released from prison?

Oh, that's right. Because people smoke pot, and pot is bad, so we have to make sure lots of pot-smokers are in prison. This leaves little room for, say, the people who rape children.

That's my question. Why are pedophiles ever released from prison?

Oh, that's right. Because people smoke pot, and pot is bad, so we have to make sure lots of pot-smokers are in prison. This leaves little room for, say, the people who rape children.

Yeah, non violent drug related crimes should defanatly be re-evaluated... if the system is so full that threats are being released ...

That and I don't thing more of a focus on rehab rather then punishment would be a bad thing

Would you rather be raped or murdered?
Rather have your kids raped or murdered?
Rather be molested or murdered?
Rather have your kids be molested or murdered?

The answers to those questions determine which of the crimes is worse.
Maybe it is how you define which crime is "worse," but it would be stupid to use such sentiments alone to determine how our criminal justice system deals with offenders.

For one thing, what about the issue of re-offending? A significant number of murders are committed by individuals who have little chance of ever committing murder again, even if they are released. (Remember that "murder" includes first degree, second degree, etc.) The motives behind a lot of murders are one-time deals. The circumstances that lead to many murders are one-time deals.

However, the rates of recidivism for sex offenders and child rapists are so high that one can say with great confidence that the majority of child rapists WILL RAPE AGAIN if given the opportunity.

I'm having trouble finding national statistics comparing recidivism in homicide perps compared to sex offenders, so if anybody's got a source that would be super. For the time being, and for the sake of argument, what if we consider that rapists are more likely to re-offend than murderers? If that is the case, should prison terms take this into account?

Also, what about justification? I can think of several situations in which I would feel that a murder was justified. I can think of plenty of situations in which I believe killing would be justified. I cannot think of any situation in which rape would be justified, except perhaps if you were raping somebody who had raped YOU. And even that one I'm not sure about.

Child molesting isn't mentally unhealthy, just illegal and potentially damaging to the child. It's a little bit like rape, except without the ewww factor.

Er... I think the ewww factor is present...

Maybe it is how you define which crime is "worse," but it would be stupid to use such sentiments alone to determine how our criminal justice system deals with offenders.

For one thing, what about the issue of re-offending? A significant number of murders are committed by individuals who have little chance of ever committing murder again, even if they are released. (Remember that "murder" includes first degree, second degree, etc.) The motives behind a lot of murders are one-time deals. The circumstances that lead to many murders are one-time deals.

However, the rates of recidivism for sex offenders and child rapists are so high that one can say with great confidence that the majority of child rapists WILL RAPE AGAIN if given the opportunity.

I'm having trouble finding national statistics comparing recidivism in homicide perps compared to sex offenders, so if anybody's got a source that would be super. For the time being, and for the sake of argument, what if we consider that rapists are more likely to re-offend than murderers? If that is the case, should prison terms take this into account?

Also, what about justification? I can think of several situations in which I would feel that a murder was justified. I can think of plenty of situations in which I believe killing would be justified. I cannot think of any situation in which rape would be justified, except perhaps if you were raping somebody who had raped YOU. And even that one I'm not sure about.

You'll need some real statistics before the recidivism argument can be taken into account, and will need in any event to explain why sex offense warrants longer punishment than other crimes with presumably high recidivism rates, like armed robbery.

Also, the last point seems trivial, since there is no such thing as "justifiable murder" that a person might be imprisoned for. Killing someone is either justifiable, or it is murder - the two are exclusive.

You know, maybe it's best if pedophiles who actually commit crimes such as molestation are not released from prison for a very long time, and when they are, they are forced to live in supervised communities. Them and rapists. it would be so much simpler.

Gitmo would be perfect for both.

That's my question. Why are pedophiles ever released from prison?

Oh, that's right. Because people smoke pot, and pot is bad, so we have to make sure lots of pot-smokers are in prison. This leaves little room for, say, the people who rape children.

YES!! Thank you! If somone wants to fry his/her own brain with drugs, I say let 'em! I sure don't want my tax dollars going to feed them and get them cableTV, which by the way I can't afford! Of course, I am also a strong believer in the death penalty for people like rapists, which would make even more space in the prisons... Besides, I think if pot were legalized, the value of it would drop drastically, and probably it would lose the "cool" factor.

In response to all the ignorant comments: Penalties for crimes are (usually) decided based on the effects of a crime - hence why armed robbery has a higher penalty than robbery (using a gun can terrify a person a lot more than demanding their money can - even many tough people who would normally floor a would-be robber are sh*t-scared of a gun) and hence why armed robbery is considered more bad than robbery. The effect of a murder over an assault is that the person no longer has no life - their life has (past tense) been destroyed. However, the effect of a rape over a murder is that a person's life is (present tense) being destroyed long after the actual event took place. The destruction of the life hasn't ended - it's ongoing, and to such a devastating degree that many victims of rape have tried to kill themselves - they would rather have no life than be alive and suffer in the way they are suffering. As you can see unless you're totally biased and/or ignorant/arrogant, looking at this logically, the effects of rape are worse than the effects of murder. The law just doesn't reflect this FACT. See links below.

http://survive.org.uk/PTSD.html - see "Symptoms often present in Rape Trauma"

http://www.ou.edu/womensoc/effects-of-rape.htm



--------------------------------------------------------------------

So...since date-rape leaves no memories, it's okay?

I think we may need to reconsider our arguments. Badly.

Presumably you mean drug-rape (date rape is simply a date that turns into a rape, drugs may or may not be used). Actually drug rape does leave memories, just not immediately and not in complete form - some time after the attack, the victim often remembers "flashes" of what took place. In addition, even if drugs used in drug rapes left no memories, by the state that the victim finds his/herself in, they would almost certainly realise that they were 'probably' attacked and that the attack may have included forced intercourse.

--------------------------------------------------


What's the difference between rape and child molestation, isn't it the same thing. Child molestation is the raping of children.

I'm guessing you're from the US where certain things that are not actual rape are treated in law as actual rape, or vice versa (eg. rape defined as "sexual assault"). I'm from the UK - in the UK, rape is basically forcing sex on another person. Molesting is groping. Both are sick, but there is a difference.

At least castrating or shooting them would work. However, placing Paedophiles near families upon the grounds that the families can better regulate them is an acceptance of mob rule and ignorance by proxy.