NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently this guy has had it with his neighbors. Now it is payback time.


http://wkrg.com/news/article/sex_offenders_and_murderers_welcome/7987/

What would you do if a disgruntled neighbor put up these signs. You know this novel idea will be copied.

I take it you listen to 1077, right? Good to see other Washingtonians on the 'net.

I take it you listen to 1077, right? Good to see other Washingtonians on the 'net.

Nah, I heard this on 710 this afternoon

Talk about karma

Sex offenders, thieves, and murderers...sounds like one heck of a party.

Sex offenders, thieves, and murderers...sounds like one heck of a party.

I wonder if this means the neighborhood block party is cancelled?

The victim lives with a registered sex offender, it's no surprise they're harassed. It's also no surprise they're upset about that and, although I'm not sure this is the best reaction, I can understand that they do react in some way.

It's a debate I'm undecided on - do people have the right to know there's a registered sex offender living nearby, does that person have a right to privacy?

Both sides have good arguments for and against to be honest.

Sex offenders, thieves, and murderers...sounds like one heck of a party.
All it needs now is some simonists and that creepy cashier-lady who doesn't know how to operate the register properly and once spent a very awkward 5 minutes fondling my muffin while she tried to find the price label.

I wonder if this means the neighborhood block party is cancelled?

By the time they're done, there won't be a block. This'll be one hell of a party.

The victim lives with a registered sex offender, it's no surprise they're harassed.

It's also no surprise they're upset about that and, although I'm not sure this is the best reaction, I can understand that they do react in some way.
The crime was 17 years ago, he obiviously has a secure partner...
I doubt he's going to go out and do more sex crimes.


It's a debate I'm undecided on - do people have the right to know there's a registered sex offender living nearby, does that person have a right to privacy? Not in this country.

Both sides have good arguments for and against to be honest. I'm seeing nothing wrong on the owner's ends. Though I am loling at the prospects. (PS: They've got applicants!)

I don't often say this, but: ONLY IN AMERICA!

*saunters off, whistling Neighbours jingle*

White says the couple wanted to move but they can't do that either. He says the real estate agents have been harassed too "If they want us to leave so bad, leave our real estate alone." News 5's Tiffany Craig says, "That doesn't make sense! If they don't want you here why would they mess up the selling house process?" White replies, "I have no idea."

If the neighbours want them out, they ought to buy the house themselves.

In fact, the owner could expect a premium (20% would be fair). Then they resell, between the whole street it would come to $20K or so. They should put their money where their mouths are.

Instead, they want to rob the owner of his assets or even murder him. Holy crap.

I can't work out if US citizens really do have a fucked-up, Old Testament sense of justice, or if the US simply has such a huge and voracious news media that shit like this is so easy to find.

Oh, and Tiffany Craig couldn't write her way out of a primary school.

Only in America, any old way. If that was happening on my street, the only people who'd get beaten up would be the television crew. Not that anyone would call them anyway.

Oh, and Tiffany Craig couldn't write her way out of a primary school.

Damn true. One of the most poorly-written articles I've read in a while. It took my focus from what the story was about for a while.

If the neighbours want them out, they ought to buy the house themselves.

In fact, the owner could expect a premium (20% would be fair). Then they resell, between the whole street it would come to $20K or so. They should put their money where their mouths are.

Instead, they want to rob the owner of his assets or even murder him. Holy crap.

I can't work out if US citizens really do have a fucked-up, Old Testament sense of justice, or if the US simply has such a huge and voracious news media that shit like this is so easy to find.

Oh, and Tiffany Craig couldn't write her way out of a primary school.

Only in America, any old way. If that was happening on my street, the only people who'd get beaten up would be the television crew. Not that anyone would call them anyway.

I can't say much for the older generations, but the up and coming are certainly more open-minded, and I'm working my hardest to convince my peers to be even more so.

I don't often say this, but: ONLY IN AMERICA!

*saunters off, whistling Neighbours jingle*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLILrC7Y5L4

Apparently this guy has had it with his neighbors. Now it is payback time.


http://wkrg.com/news/article/sex_offenders_and_murderers_welcome/7987/

What would you do if a disgruntled neighbor put up these signs. You know this novel idea will be copied.

I doubt that a neighbor would be able to put up signs like these in my neighborhood, since I rent (as do my neighbors). Now, if the property manager did something like this, I wouldn't have to do anything (probably enough of my neighbors would complain to stop it).

I don't like that reporter, she uses far too many exclamation marks in unnecessary places!

I find this amusing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLILrC7Y5L4

You ba****d! I strike back with this: politicalhumor.about.com (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokeonlyinamerica.htm)

Bobby White says he's fed up with the neighbors. "I will be here renting out rooms to sex offenders and ex-murderers and ex-thieves! They forced me into this as long as they are not on parole or on paper. I can rent out rooms to whoever I like."

Ooch, bet property values are gonna go way down in that neighborhood.

Apparently this guy has had it with his neighbors. Now it is payback time.


http://wkrg.com/news/article/sex_offenders_and_murderers_welcome/7987/

What would you do if a disgruntled neighbor put up these signs. You know this novel idea will be copied.

I would look at the sex offender list, find the people who have been listed for the most possibly inane reason (like being seen peeing on the bushes, or whatnot), and poke him at that address.

Imagine the chagrin of my neighbor as his place, instead of being filled with angry dangerous people, is filled up with polite, possibly Christian, men and women whose only crime has been to violate some silly local sex ordnance! :D

All the power to them. I, personally, think people that have served their debt to society have the same right as the rest of us to live free from threats and harassment. But, failing that.. Payback's a bitch.

Ooch, bet property values are gonna go way down in that neighborhood.

Of course, they will. But those residents should have thought about that before harassing the guy based on his record.

The best solution for them is still ... buy his house off him. Before or after their property values have fallen. It kind of evens out either way, every cent they spend to buy his house off him now, is money well spent to protect their own property values.

Freaky precedent surely. But being known as the suburb that Kills to Protect Their Property Values is no better alternative.

Nah, if they're gonna kill someone, it's the rat who brought this to the attention of the media! . . . . Er ... who was that, anyway?

If I'm reading the Alabama sex offender registry correctly, then Mr. Ham was convicted of sodomy in the second degree. His victim was a 15 year old (Ham was 30 at the time).

The fact that he is not still in prison represents a failure of our justice system, in my opinion. His behavior should have resulted in a mandatory minimum life sentence. Since the justice system has failed so spectacularly in dealing with this convicted rapist, I'm forced to support his neighbors as they police him and (hopefully) make his life miserable.

All the power to them. I, personally, think people that have served their debt to society have the same right as the rest of us to live free from threats and harassment.

The "debt to society" concept is bogus, misleading words. Crims do nothing for anyone while serving time, in fact they cost society money. But I'm only quibbling over the phrase; I agree 100% with the sentiment.

Punishment exists in the future, so to speak. The only good reason for punishment is as a disincentive to commit a crime, and once the crime has been committed, everyone is worse off. The state must punish, to prove that it keeps its word, not because it does any damn good.

Releasing someone from jail but disadvantaging them in society thereafter (in the case of the Sex Offender's Register, forever) is fucking daft. We know plain well that social disadvantage makes people more likely to commit crime, add that to the fact that those people have (probably) committed a crime before ... anyone would think that the Sex Offenders Register is intended to make them re-offend!

Bad idea. Really, really bad idea. Raise the stakes on the offenders, push them into a corner. You know what happens? Instead of groping their second neice at Christmas, they kidnap and rape a child.

The more that happens, the more we get the idea that crims can't be rehabilitated. So, push them into the corner some more. Zero tolerance, you might as well rape a whole busload, then blow yourself up with the whole lot of them and the dozen cops who are coming for you, cos the worst they can do is kill you, right? And they're gonna anyway?

Argh. Is this reductio ad absurdem, or am I just being mesmerized by the vicious circle?

But, failing that.. Payback's a bitch.

Payback is made of phail.

Apparently this guy has had it with his neighbors. Now it is payback time.


http://wkrg.com/news/article/sex_offenders_and_murderers_welcome/7987/

What would you do if a disgruntled neighbor put up these signs. You know this novel idea will be copied.
The block parties would certainly be awkward at first...

I think I'd add something like "New vacancies frequently -- check back often", to the sign.

If I'm reading the Alabama sex offender registry correctly, then Mr. Ham was convicted of sodomy in the second degree. His victim was a 15 year old (Ham was 30 at the time).

The fact that he is not still in prison represents a failure of our justice system, in my opinion. His behavior should have resulted in a mandatory minimum life sentence. Since the justice system has failed so spectacularly in dealing with this convicted rapist, I'm forced to support his neighbors as they police him and (hopefully) make his life miserable.

I don't trust my eyes.

You'd go zero tolerance on someone, for anal sex with a 15 year old?

Failing that, you advocate a second level (which frankly, will police itself with all the subtlety of the monkey enclosure at the zoo) of justice, to redress any failings of a formal system of law which is the single best reason for having government in the first place?

Why not just buy a few guns and go totally "I'm right and might is right so I just might?"

Welcome to the monkey house. You just lost your mind.

I don't trust my eyes.

You'd go zero tolerance on someone, for anal sex with a 15 year old?

I go zero tolerance for rape. Having sex with a person who does not or cannot consent is rape.


Failing that, you advocate a second level (which frankly, will police itself with all the subtlety of the monkey enclosure at the zoo) of justice, to redress any failings of a formal system of law which is the single best reason for having government in the first place?

Forgive me, but my faith in the US justice system is a bit shaken these days. I don't trust the courts to deliver justice, and I have trouble blaming anybody who decides that they'll have to seek justice on their own.


Why not just buy a few guns and go totally "I'm right and might is right so I just might?"

I'm not talking about citizens being judge and jury, here. We're talking about a man who was convicted in a court of law, with all the legal rights and protections given to individuals in our system, but his sentence is (in my opinion) not appropriate to his crime.


Welcome to the monkey house. You just lost your mind.
Meh, nothing I haven't been told before. I've been told by racists that I've lost my mind because I support inter-racial marriages. It isn't any more convincing when you say it.

Thing about sex offenders, IMO, is like with "felonies".

When people hear "sex offender" they think of some terrible fellow who rapes five-year olds on Mondays and Tuesdays, and on Wednesdays, he takes a break to molest a newborn baby.

[I'm exaggerating poetically here, of course].

But as a matter of time sex offenders are now also a lot of normal, innocent people whom you would not normally reject as your neighbors.

Fifteen-year-old sends pics of herself naked over AiM, girl is now a sex offender.

Man solicits a 17-year-old for consensual sex online, he's now an "omg evil pedophile." That's not what the word 'pedophile' even means, but hey, who cares, it's WITCHUNT TIME.

Now you take these people, and you advertise in public they're sex offenders. 99% of the population will think some former [possibly rehabilitated] Evil Sex Predator has moved in.

Guess what? That's phail.

Thing about sex offenders, IMO, is like with "felonies".

When people hear "sex offender" they think of some terrible fellow who rapes five-year olds on Mondays and Tuesdays, and on Wednesdays, he takes a break to molest a newborn baby.

[I'm exaggerating poetically here, of course].

But as a matter of time sex offenders are now also a lot of normal, innocent people whom you would not normally reject as your neighbors.

Fifteen-year-old sends pics of herself naked over AiM, girl is now a sex offender.

Man solicits a 17-year-old for consensual sex online, he's now an "omg evil pedophile." That's not what the word 'pedophile' even means, but hey, who cares, it's WITCHUNT TIME.

Now you take these people, and you advertise in public they're sex offenders. 99% of the population will think some former [possibly rehabilitated] Evil Sex Predator has moved in.

Guess what? That's phail.
That's why you check the registry, and find out what the "sex offender" was convicted of.

I go zero tolerance for rape. Having sex with a person who does not or cannot consent is rape.

A 15-year-old cannot consent? What universe are you in?

A 15-year-old cannot consent? What universe are you in?
I'd suggest you read up on the law before you go any further down this road.

That's why you check the registry, and find out what the "sex offender" was convicted of.

And most often the registry has words like "sexual assault of a minor" or other legal terms, without description of what actually occured.

Or, as in the case of the 15-year-old above, "distribution of child pornography".

A 15-year-old cannot consent? What universe are you in?

The same one as you. 15 year olds can't legally consent in the US.

And most often the registry has words like "sexual assault of a minor" or other legal terms, without description of what actually occured.

Um, I did exactly this...ON THIS THREAD.

I checked the registry for the guy's name. Found what he was convicted of. Did a copy-paste and checked the legal definition in Alabama law. Hey-presto.

This guy got sexual with a minor. By definition, his victim could not give legal consent. In my universe, sex with a non-consenting individual is rape. He's a rapist, and hence I believe he should have stayed in prison for life.

Forgive me, but I don't have much sympathy for a 30 year old man who couldn't figure out the concept of "DON'T FUCK MINORS."

I'd suggest you read up on the law before you go any further down this road. According to the laws of the state in which this man was convicted (and, indeed, most states in this country) his victim was not able to legally consent to sex.


Yes, I am aware of it.

But I am also aware that what you were advocating is "zero tolerance" of all people who have sex with someone below the arbitrary age of consent. That's lame.

It's completely unjust to equalize someone who has sex with, say, a five-year-old [and yes, freaks like that do exist] and actually is a pedophile than someone who has sex with a 15- or 17-year old. That's just not the same thing.

EDIT: I AM AWARE THAT IN SOME COUNTRIES PEOPLE BELOW 16 ARE NOT ABLE TO CONSENT LEGALLY. I LIVE IN ONE SUCH COUNTRY. THAT IS NOT MY POINT.

Yes, I am aware of it.

But I am also aware that what you were advocating is "zero tolerance" of all people who have sex with someone below the arbitrary age of consent. That's lame.

It's completely unjust to equalize someone who has sex with, say, a five-year-old [and yes, freaks like that do exist] and actually is a pedophile than someone who has sex with a 15- or 17-year old. That's just not the same thing.

EDIT: I AM AWARE THAT IN SOME COUNTRIES PEOPLE BELOW 16 ARE NOT ABLE TO CONSENT LEGALLY. I LIVE IN ONE SUCH COUNTRY. THAT IS NOT MY POINT.

Not even if the age gap is 15 years, really a 30 year old and a 15 year old, you see nothing wrong in that?

Not inherently, no.

Bloody hell! Can I ask how old you are?

Not even if the age gap is 15 years, really a 30 year old and a 15 year old, you see nothing wrong in that?

Not inherently, no.

Yes, I am aware of it.

But I am also aware that what you were advocating is "zero tolerance" of all people who have sex with someone below the arbitrary age of consent. That's lame.

"That's lame" is not particularly compelling as an argument.

The whole point of the age of consent is recognizing that even if a 13 year old says, "Yes, I'll suck you off, Daddy," she's not legally giving consent. Where we draw the line for age of consent is obviously an important topic, but that's really a whole other debate.


It's completely unjust to equalize someone who has sex with, say, a five-year-old [and yes, freaks like that do exist] and actually is a pedophile than someone who has sex with a 15- or 17-year old. That's just not the same thing.

To me, any sex with a non-consenting party is rape, and all rapists deserve (at the very least) a mandatory minimum life sentence. If you'd like to argue for enforcing additional penalties on certain rapists because their crimes were even more heinous, then I'd be more than willing to discuss that.

Bloody hell! Can I ask how old you are?

I'm a 75-year old card-carrying NAMBLA member.





































Not really.

Forgive me, but my faith in the US justice system is a bit shaken these days. I don't trust the courts to deliver justice, and I have trouble blaming anybody who decides that they'll have to seek justice on their own.

I'm not talking about citizens being judge and jury, here. We're talking about a man who was convicted in a court of law, with all the legal rights and protections given to individuals in our system, but his sentence is (in my opinion) not appropriate to his crime.
If the courts weren't competent enough to properly administer punishment, why the Hell should we trust them to properly affix guilt? The legal system isn't something that you can just pick and choose from like some sort of All You Can Eat Buffet.

The legal system isn't something that you can just pick and choose from like some sort of All You Can Eat Buffet.

I can, but then I'm extraordinarily rich and thus have all the best lawyers.

Yay capitalism!

That's why you check the registry, and find out what the "sex offender" was convicted of.

And most often the registry has words like "sexual assault of a minor" or other legal terms, without description of what actually occured.

Or, as in the case of the 15-year-old above, "distribution of child pornography".

Most of the time they aren't even THAT specific, listing only the degree of the crime, which could cover a wide variety of offenses.

Yes, I am aware of it.

But I am also aware that what you were advocating is "zero tolerance" of all people who have sex with someone below the arbitrary age of consent. That's lame.

It's completely unjust to equalize someone who has sex with, say, a five-year-old [and yes, freaks like that do exist] and actually is a pedophile than someone who has sex with a 15- or 17-year old. That's just not the same thing.

EDIT: I AM AWARE THAT IN SOME COUNTRIES PEOPLE BELOW 16 ARE NOT ABLE TO CONSENT LEGALLY. I LIVE IN ONE SUCH COUNTRY. THAT IS NOT MY POINT.

Know what I find amusing, in a tragic, rueful sort of way? That this guy got busted for sodomizing a 15 year old, and was convicted on the basis that the kid was underage. Ok fine. BUT in our legal system, that SAME 15 year old could go out and commit a crime of his own and if it's serious enough, could be charged as an adult...

I wonder if something like that could be used to overturn the first guy's conviction... somehow I think not.

I'm not comfortable with a system that tries to find too many ways to maximize punishments rather than focusing on the causes.

The whole point of the age of consent is recognizing that even if a 13 year old says, "Yes, I'll suck you off, Daddy," she's not legally giving consent. Where we draw the line for age of consent is obviously an important topic, but that's really a whole other debate.

Let me present my line of argument to you in a way which will make it crystal-clear what I mean.

An age of consent is always an arbitrary line. Now that does not mean that it is a bad idea to have an age of consent, but in administering the penal system, we must continue to recognize that this line is arbitrary.

In real life it is possible for a person to give consent at the age of 17, or 16, or 15 (depending on the person).

During trial, both the conviction and sentencing stage, it should be realize that the line is arbitrary. There is a difference between a man, say, exploiting his position as a teacher or father to molest his daughter or pupil, or a man that has a relationship with a legally underaged person, and the courts and legislators should act to recognize that difference. If nothing else the juries should go all out and use nullification if they have to. If not, judges should use low sentences, governors should pardon, and prosecutors use reduced charges against people who violate the letter of the law but not its spirit.

Visualize, if you will, the left part of a bell curve. The horizontal axis is the age, and the vertical axis is the percentage of people who are capable of sexual consent. Somewhere around 18 it approaches 100% [not fully because the insane and the retarded count, too], and it falls off sharply somewhere around puberty, and hovers around zero at pre-pubescent ages (in fact for all practical considerations it is zero).

Such a curve is a much more honest (though oversimplified) representation of the real world than the idea that this percentage is somehow at near 100% post an arbitrary age and at 0% before it.

In the Western legal system, we're supposed to treat people as individuals.

A 15-year-old cannot consent? What universe are you in?

She lives in the United States.

In Australia, in most states, the age of consent is 16. In NSW (my state) it's 16 for both sexes, and gay or straight. 18 with a guardian (eg teacher).

This seems about right to me.

I think this illustrates most sadly, how moral standards are defined by law, not the other way around.

To me, 15 is "meh" territory. 13 is very worrying if it's an older teen going with them, some jail time if it's an adult. 11 is wrong any old way.

I do wonder though ... if the law of my country set the age of consent two years higher or lower ... would my moral judgements be set two years higher or lower?

I'll return to this, sober, but still with very little expectation of a resolution. I'm starting to wonder what the hell we mean by "child" or even "human" any more ... perhaps it's an intuition based on the physical presence of such, and this Forum business is leading me into a rather abstract definition of "being."

I understood this. See my explanation above.

Yes, I am aware of it.

But I am also aware that what you were advocating is "zero tolerance" of all people who have sex with someone below the arbitrary age of consent. That's lame.

I'd like to take that a step further and remind everyone that in cases like this, we're generally talking about a certain degree of mental illness. IMHO if a guy molests a child as a result of his mental illness, and is imprisoned for life, that's really no different than the 19th century practice of taking ALL mentally ill people and stuffing them into a prison-like asylum.

The fact is that ever since psychological treatment was mandated as part of sentencing for people who commit crimes in this category, the recitivism rate has gone from one of the highest to the lowest. (According to DOJ stats.)

Some people react by saying that well, this person is a rapist and all rapists should be imprisoned for life. Well such people obviously have an axe to grind and we're left to wonder at the reasons for it. (No need to get into that sort of thing here) The fact is, it's a result of emotionalism that has no place in creating a fair justice system.

I'd like to take that a step further and remind everyone that in cases like this, we're generally talking about a certain degree of mental illness.

No, we are not. Paedophilia [sexual attraction to prepubescent children] normally does mean someone is mentally ill, but plenty of perfectly healthy people are attracted to teens [hence why "Barely Legal" porn sells so readily].

That said, the people you're most worried about reoffending are the crazy pedo types.

No, we are not. Paedophilia [sexual attraction to prepubescent children] normally does mean someone is mentally ill, but plenty of perfectly healthy people are attracted to teens [hence why "Barely Legal" porn sells so readily].

That said, the people you're most worried about reoffending are the crazy pedo types.

Well that's what I mean, but I should have been more clear.

I go zero tolerance for rape. Having sex with a person who does not or cannot consent is rape.


Forgive me, but my faith in the US justice system is a bit shaken these days. I don't trust the courts to deliver justice, and I have trouble blaming anybody who decides that they'll have to seek justice on their own.


I'm not talking about citizens being judge and jury, here. We're talking about a man who was convicted in a court of law, with all the legal rights and protections given to individuals in our system, but his sentence is (in my opinion) not appropriate to his crime.


Meh, nothing I haven't been told before. I've been told by racists that I've lost my mind because I support inter-racial marriages. It isn't any more convincing when you say it.

He was punished for his crime. You have no authority to determine if his sentence was sufficient, the courts do. Since he served the sentence the courts dictated, legally there's nothing else that can be done to him, unless he re-offends.

Damn true. One of the most poorly-written articles I've read in a while. It took my focus from what the story was about for a while.

I really loved all the exclamation marks! That didn't really fit!