NationStates Jolt Archive

So, tonight for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list. I typed in my address and stuff, and it shows me a list of sex offenders in the vicinity of my house. It shows a map, and I noticed that some are close to a local elementary school. One of them live as close as .5 miles to the school, which I got off of Mapquest. Now North Carolina law says that a registered sex offender can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, or daycare center, basically anyplace where children may be. Now like I said, the closes one to the school is .5 miles away, which unfortunately he is legally outside 1,000 range. What is really fucked up is that this man was charged with "INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR".

I don't know...this guy MAY be legally safe, but comon, .5 miles?! Hell he can walk there! God....that is too fucking close! I even drew a straight line from his house to the school on Google Earth, and he is STILL legally safe. (It came out to 1,600 feet). I want to report this to the police, but I can't they won't be able to touch him or do anything.

Dammit....he shouldn't be that close to the school!

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?

So you typed in your address and realized your house is only 1600ft from a public school?

The quiet guy living three doors down and across the street from you is a serial killer. I'd be more worried about him if I were you.

Calm down. Have a taco.

So you typed in your address and realized your house is only 1600ft from a public school?

Ha ha, No. It showed a radius of 5 miles and every sex offender in that five mile radius. I just happened to notice this one that lives .5 miles from a local elementary school.

The quiet guy living three doors down and across the street from you is a serial killer. I'd be more worried about him if I were you.

Calm down. Have a taco.

Yea but comon....he shouldn't be THAT close to a school! Especially with what he was charged with on the NC Sex Offender Registry. It's too close for comfort...

Ha ha, No. It showed a radius of 5 miles and every sex offender in that five mile radius. I just happened to notice this one that lives .5 miles from a local elementary school.

Ahh ok. Well this is what I get for reading every third word. I thought you said you were the sex offender and you were surprised you lived so close to a school. Then you were contemplating calling the police on yourself when you realized that they couldn't do anything about you.

Maybe I should pay attention more....

Calm down. Have a taco.

This is what serial killers typically say right before they kill their victims.

Yea but comon....he shouldn't be THAT close to a school! Especially with what he was charged with on the NC Sex Offender Registry. It's too close for comfort...

Think how he feels. Kids walking to and from school every day past his house... It's like living next to a strip club and banging a stripper would get you sent to prison again.

I'd spend a lot of time in online distracting myself with forums just like this one and trying to ignore the snazzy music drifting through the walls...

This is what serial killers typically say right before they kill their victims.

During. They often get a bit histerical. *nod*

:)

Dammit....he shouldn't be that close to the school!

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?

Eh. Anyone who has taken a criminology course will tell you that child abductions by a stranger are about as rare a thing as you'll find for crime. Kids are victimized by family and close friends/family friends, not ex-con molesters who live 999 feet from their school rather than 1001 feet.

As for what you can do, there's a few ways you might harass him into moving, intimidate him via violence or threats, or send him back to prison if he's less that 3 years out (3 in California - probably less where you are) by getting him violated, but there are probably dozens of similar or worse sex offenders in your area and you're not going to get them all.

Think how he feels. Kids walking to and from school every day past his house... It's like living next to a strip club and banging a stripper would get you sent to prison again.

I'd spend a lot of time in online distracting myself with forums just like this one and trying to ignore the snazzy music drifting through the walls...

Whats more messed up is according to the list, he never served jail time. He only got a 36 month probation period. They must've settled out of court.

Yea, that's going to teach him not to mess with children again.... Not.

Eh. Anyone who has taken a criminology course will tell you that child abductions by a stranger are about as rare a thing as you'll find for crime. Kids are victimized by family and close friends/family friends, not ex-con molesters who live 999 feet from their school rather than 1001 feet.

As for what you can do, there's a few ways you might harass him into moving, intimidate him via violence or threats, or send him back to prison if he's less that 3 years out (3 in California - probably less where you are) by getting him violated, but there are probably dozens of similar or worse sex offenders in your area and you're not going to get them all.

Not to mention the ones too smart to get caught.

Eh. Anyone who has taken a criminology course will tell you that child abductions by a stranger are about as rare a thing as you'll find for crime. Kids are victimized by family and close friends/family friends, not ex-con molesters who live 999 feet from their school rather than 1001 feet.

As for what you can do, there's a few ways you might harass him into moving, intimidate him via violence or threats, or send him back to prison if he's less that 3 years out (3 in California - probably less where you are) by getting him violated, but there are probably dozens of similar or worse sex offenders in your area and you're not going to get them all.

Well I have to admit, I know the back story on this guy, I know the victim, and I know how he is related to the victim, so to me yea it is personal.

...meanwhile, life goes on.

Well I have to admit, I know the back story on this guy, I know the victim, and I know how he is related to the victim, so to me yea it is personal.

The only thing you can do in this situation is get a neighborhood lynch mob going.


Seriously though they did it in my neighborhood when I was young. This guy that was targeted had his house and car vandalized. Signs were put up in his yard and his car had child molester painted on the side. He was basically run out of dodge.

Yea but comon....he shouldn't be THAT close to a school! Especially with what he was charged with on the NC Sex Offender Registry. It's too close for comfort...

"Indecent liberty - minor" could mean a thousand different things. They use "lewd conduct" near me, I believe. Either way, I'm not sure how you can be scandalized by something so vaguely worded. If you're so concerned, go to your local library, get on Westlaw, get the case number of the guy's conviction if there is one, go to your local courthouse and get the transcripts of the plea/trial - it's all public information. Then at least you'd know what the "indecent liberty" was, and whether the guy's a pedophile who'd target an elementary school or just some other kind of idiot.

Maybe I should pay attention more....Stop thinking about our pix, and you'll do fine. :p

Thoughts?My thoughts are, some have it a little worse than others as far as their neighbors go ...:
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8165552
http://www.fortmilltimes.com/124/story/132777.html

So ... with malice aforethought?

Just keep in mind that it's easier to be classified as a Sex Offender than you'd believe it should be. Some states, being caught with your genitals exposed even if you weren't trying to show it to anyone is enough to get you labelled a Sex Offender.

The problem with the Sex Offender category is that it doesn't distinguish between Child Molesters, Rapists and Someone Caught With His Pants Down. And the term "Sex Offender" always implies the subject is a rapist if not an outright child molester.

If this guy was a rapist or molester, yeah that's a worry but if he got nailed on some technicality that doesn't even come close under the Common Sense Test, then he'd got enough shit in his life as it is without you setting off more alarms.

Well.. with powered methods of transport, i doubt it makes much difference if he is 1000 feet or 1000 miles away... if he really has the urge to do anything, then his decision is not going to be based on where he lives. I doubt too many sex offenders think to themselves: "Gee, I really feel like exposing myself today, wish I lived a block closer to the school so I could walk there easier"

I imagine the 1000 foot thing is to keep them away from the temptation. If these offenders can hear/see kids playing over their fence, then they are obviously going to be thinking of it more... Which may lead to them actually doing something.

Well I have to admit, I know the back story on this guy, I know the victim, and I know how he is related to the victim, so to me yea it is personal. So what did he do?

Ratting him out online is a good first step to running him out of town.

Well.. with powered methods of transport, i doubt it makes much difference if he is 1000 feet or 1000 miles away... if he really has the urge to do anything, then his decision is not going to be based on where he lives. I doubt too many sex offenders think to themselves: "Gee, I really feel like exposing myself today, wish I lived a block closer to the school so I could walk there easier"
What if you're covering several miles in extremely short amounts of time?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338889,00.html

So, tonight for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list.

You really need to get out more.

Or what if he stands still and lets the action come to him?
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12558441&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6

You really need to get out more.

Will that end up like this?
http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7942789p-7836216c.html


Funny how there's a thread about how much you like where you live ...

So, tonight for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list. I typed in my address and stuff, and it shows me a list of sex offenders in the vicinity of my house. It shows a map, and I noticed that some are close to a local elementary school. One of them live as close as .5 miles to the school, which I got off of Mapquest. Now North Carolina law says that a registered sex offender can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, or daycare center, basically anyplace where children may be. Now like I said, the closes one to the school is .5 miles away, which unfortunately he is legally outside 1,000 range. What is really fucked up is that this man was charged with "INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR".

I don't know...this guy MAY be legally safe, but comon, .5 miles?! Hell he can walk there! God....that is too fucking close! I even drew a straight line from his house to the school on Google Earth, and he is STILL legally safe. (It came out to 1,600 feet). I want to report this to the police, but I can't they won't be able to touch him or do anything.

Dammit....he shouldn't be that close to the school!

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?

I suggest you quit with the pedo-witch hunting and take up a more constructive hobby.

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....
Why should you feel the need to do anything - except maybe get out more?

Well.. with powered methods of transport, i doubt it makes much difference if he is 1000 feet or 1000 miles away... if he really has the urge to do anything, then his decision is not going to be based on where he lives. I doubt too many sex offenders think to themselves: "Gee, I really feel like exposing myself today, wish I lived a block closer to the school so I could walk there easier"

I imagine the 1000 foot thing is to keep them away from the temptation. If these offenders can hear/see kids playing over their fence, then they are obviously going to be thinking of it more... Which may lead to them actually doing something.

Lies. It is a well known fact that sex offenders cannot cross moving water and must retire to a box containing the soil of their homeland when sleeping.

Also:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59vY1Q

So, tonight for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list. I typed in my address and stuff, and it shows me a list of sex offenders in the vicinity of my house. It shows a map, and I noticed that some are close to a local elementary school. One of them live as close as .5 miles to the school, which I got off of Mapquest. Now North Carolina law says that a registered sex offender can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, or daycare center, basically anyplace where children may be. Now like I said, the closes one to the school is .5 miles away, which unfortunately he is legally outside 1,000 range. What is really fucked up is that this man was charged with "INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR".

I don't know...this guy MAY be legally safe, but comon, .5 miles?! Hell he can walk there! God....that is too fucking close! I even drew a straight line from his house to the school on Google Earth, and he is STILL legally safe. (It came out to 1,600 feet). I want to report this to the police, but I can't they won't be able to touch him or do anything.

Dammit....he shouldn't be that close to the school!

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?

If the state of North Carolina deems that 1,000 feet from a school is the minimum, and he's well over that, there's nothing that can be done. If you don't like it, lobby your legislators to increase the distance.

Just keep in mind that it's easier to be classified as a Sex Offender than you'd believe it should be. Some states, being caught with your genitals exposed even if you weren't trying to show it to anyone is enough to get you labelled a Sex Offender.

The problem with the Sex Offender category is that it doesn't distinguish between Child Molesters, Rapists and Someone Caught With His Pants Down. And the term "Sex Offender" always implies the subject is a rapist if not an outright child molester.

If this guy was a rapist or molester, yeah that's a worry but if he got nailed on some technicality that doesn't even come close under the Common Sense Test, then he'd got enough shit in his life as it is without you setting off more alarms.

So what did he do?

Ratting him out online is a good first step to running him out of town.

Trust me, he is a child molester, let's just say he's not going to exactly win father of the year, and the mother isn't exactly a saint either. She didn't do anything, but she didn't exactly stop it to protect the daughter either.

Remember kids: The best way to handle sexually based crimes is to punish the crminal in a Victorian-esque manner rather than taking the time to figure out how to treat whatever causes them to do it and prevent it in the future! After all, you stop crime by punishment, right? It's not as if that doesn't actually do anything to stop such crime and often causes a lot of reoffenses, right? I mean, the idea of constant psychological distress causing someone to eventually snap from the pressure...what a ludicrous idea. And I mean, we all know that vigilante justice is perfectly accurate and never gets anything wrong or goes over the top.

So just keep up with your witch-hunts, Wilgrove. You're making the world a better place!

wow this takes me back to the year 2000 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society)

give up on this pedo-nonsense its all sensationalism on par with the burning of witches/tracing your family tree or at the very least hang outside schools taking pictures of anything suspicious (naturally in an overcoat and hat)

So just keep up with your witch-hunts, Wilgrove. You're making the world a better place!

Yea, because we def. need to make life better for the rapist, child molester, incesters, for the dad, daughter, aunt, uncle, and the stranger down the street who ruined a life of an innocence person because they can't keep it in their pants. Yea, I should be concerned about their rights. :rolleyes: Trust Kyronea, if it was up to me, every Rapist, every Child Molester, everyone who has done something like that to an innocent victim, will be put in the General Prison Population and I'd give the order to the guards to look the other way while the other inmates take care of them. They do not deserve special protection, they do not deserve to have their thoughts and feelings considered, they lost ALL of that when they decide to lay their first hand on their victim. After that, they revoked their rights.

Remember, MY rights end, where YOUR nose begins.

You can feel sorry for the criminals and sick bastards if you want, but I'll be on the victim's side thank you very much.

Yea, because we def. need to make life better for the rapist, child molester, incesters, for the dad, daughter, aunt, uncle, and the stranger down the street who ruined a life of an innocence person because they can't keep it in their pants. Yea, I should be concerned about their rights. :rolleyes: Trust Kyronea, if it was up to me, every Rapist, every Child Molester, everyone who has done something like that to an innocent victim, will be put in the General Prison Population and I'd give the order to the guards to look the other way while the other inmates take care of them. They do not deserve special protection, they do not deserve to have their thoughts and feelings considered, they lost ALL of that when they decide to lay their first hand on their victim. After that, they revoked their rights.

Remember, MY rights end, where YOUR nose begins.

You can feel sorry for the criminals and sick bastards if you want, but I'll be on the victim's side thank you very much.

No. No one revokes or sacrifices their rights, no matter what act they make.

For the record, I don't want people to mistake this as me approving of any form of molestation, because I don't. I simply say that this barbaric attitude we have towards those who molest others is outdated, crude, and simply unacceptable. It demonstrably leads to more molestation.

We should help them. We should try figuring out what causes the behavior and prevent it, not inflict huge amounts of physical and emotional harm to them.

But hey, I'm just someone who actually believes in the idea of human rights no matter what rather than when it's convenient like so many people on here. Forgive me for not being a hypocrite who'd gladly inflict horrible pain and suffering and removal of rights to anyone that doesn't match up to their morality.

So, tonight for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list. I typed in my address and stuff, and it shows me a list of sex offenders in the vicinity of my house. It shows a map, and I noticed that some are close to a local elementary school. One of them live as close as .5 miles to the school, which I got off of Mapquest. Now North Carolina law says that a registered sex offender can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, or daycare center, basically anyplace where children may be. Now like I said, the closes one to the school is .5 miles away, which unfortunately he is legally outside 1,000 range. What is really fucked up is that this man was charged with "INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR".

I don't know...this guy MAY be legally safe, but comon, .5 miles?! Hell he can walk there! God....that is too fucking close! I even drew a straight line from his house to the school on Google Earth, and he is STILL legally safe. (It came out to 1,600 feet). I want to report this to the police, but I can't they won't be able to touch him or do anything.

Dammit....he shouldn't be that close to the school!

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?

1. You didn't check the Sex Offenders Registry for fun. That's a plain out lie.
2. People can walk the entire circumference of the earth. If "he can walk there" is too close for you, then you may as well call for the summary execution of everyone on the Registry. Or perhaps just their re-incarceration.
3. Wtf with the school? There are kids everywhere, and at school or travelling to/from is not when they are vulnerable. They are vulnerable mainly to people they trust, not "strangers."

No. No one revokes or sacrifices their rights, no matter what act they make.

They do when they decide to harm another person. It doesn't matter if it's molestation, or rape, or even assault. The moment you lay your hand on that person without their consent, your rights just ended.

For the record, I don't want people to mistake this as me approving of any form of molestation, because I don't. I simply say that this barbaric attitude we have towards those who molest others is outdated, crude, and simply unacceptable. It demonstrably leads to more molestation.

Well if it makes you feel any better, he didn't get any jail time for what he did to his daughter, he got 36 months probation, and a nice home .5 miles away from an Elementary School. I'm sure that just warms your heart up.

We should help them. We should try figuring out what causes the behavior and prevent it, not inflict huge amounts of physical and emotional harm to them.

Oh I know why this happened, it's because he couldn't keep it in his pants and to him, a vagina is a vagina, no matter where he got it from.

But hey, I'm just someone who actually believes in the idea of human rights no matter what rather than when it's convenient like so many people on here. Forgive me for not being a hypocrite who'd gladly inflict horrible pain and suffering and removal of rights to anyone that doesn't match up to their morality.

and I'm someone who thinks the criminal gets enough protection and "rights" under the Constitution and we don't think about the victim often enough. No we just want to be "fair" to the sick bastards, never minding that it's the sick bastard who ruined a person's life, and who destroyed a family. But, hey, you go ahead and worry about how the criminal feels, and if he's being treated "fairly". I'm sure he can come up with a list that's a 1,000 pages long that'll make his life better and more fair.

Trust Kyronea, if it was up to me, every Rapist, every Child Molester, everyone who has done something like that to an innocent victim, will be put in the General Prison Population and I'd give the order to the guards to look the other way while the other inmates take care of them.
So not only have you no faith in the justice system and are a supporter of lynch mobs, but you don't care about making sure the victims of any miscarriages of justice are protected, and you feel violent criminals should be allowed to do as they please in prison with impunity and that the guards shall be accessories to any crimes - just to sate your own desire for vengance.

Nice.

They do not deserve special protection
Who said anything about "special"? You don't even want to give them any.

they do not deserve to have their thoughts and feelings considered, they lost ALL of that when they decide to lay their first hand on their victim. After that, they revoked their rights.
Not at all.

You can feel sorry for the criminals and sick bastards if you want, but I'll be on the victim's side thank you very much.
Except that you aren't. You're on your own side, where your lust for vengance doesn't take into account the side of the victim at all.

if it was up to me, every Rapist, every Child Molester, everyone who has done something like that to an innocent victim, will be put in the General Prison Population and I'd give the order to the guards to look the other way while the other inmates take care of them. They do not deserve special protection, they do not deserve to have their thoughts and feelings considered, they lost ALL of that when they decide to lay their first hand on their victim. After that, they revoked their rights.

Remember, MY rights end, where YOUR nose begins.

You can feel sorry for the criminals and sick bastards if you want, but I'll be on the victim's side thank you very much.

Little question.

How do you know for sure that they are THE RIGHT PEOPLE here? Did you see them doing it? Have indisputable evidence?

Because, you see, a man was just freed from prison for a rape he didn't commit after 23 years and I was thinking maybe you could talk to him about those nice ideas you have.

You can begin telling him of how you'd expect the government to make reparations to him for allowing his wanton rape and end trying to convince him not to beat the shit out of you, with good reason.

Yea, because we def. need to make life better for the rapist, child molester, incesters, for the dad, daughter, aunt, uncle, and the stranger down the street who ruined a life of an innocence person because they can't keep it in their pants. Yea, I should be concerned about their rights. :rolleyes: Trust Kyronea, if it was up to me, every Rapist, every Child Molester, everyone who has done something like that to an innocent victim, will be put in the General Prison Population and I'd give the order to the guards to look the other way while the other inmates take care of them. They do not deserve special protection, they do not deserve to have their thoughts and feelings considered, they lost ALL of that when they decide to lay their first hand on their victim. After that, they revoked their rights.

Remember, MY rights end, where YOUR nose begins.

You can feel sorry for the criminals and sick bastards if you want, but I'll be on the victim's side thank you very much.

Presumably the justice system has had its say.
And you're not The Punisher.

The quiet guy living three doors down and across the street from you is a serial killer. I'd be more worried about him if I were you.

Calm down. Have a taco.

No kidding. Have two.

Wilgrove, I completely understand your disgust for those who would take advantage of a child. What you're failing to understand is that a very small percentage of the general human population is born, raised or through no active fault of their own becomes, well, broken.

I am no psychopathologist so I don't know the how or why, but I do know that nature and/or nurture can be as cruel as they are kind. Your attitude would have anyone who is thus afflicted jailed and summarily brutalized. Addicts, the mentally deficient, schizophrenics...basically anyone not meeting your definition of normal. And I shudder to think of how narrow that particular definition is -- and I've seen enough of your posts to get a pretty damned good idea.

Humans are supposed to have grown past the need for petty vengeance since the days of the Old Testament, when you could stone someone to death for any little transgression. Or do you not remember the Lord's Prayer?

Concepts like innocent until proven guilty and rule of law and rehabilitation aren't just convenient mantles we parade about in only when the situation is palatable to us. Much like the First Amendment protecting speech we think is just plain wrong, the due process amendments apply to everyone, no matter how foul we imagine their crimes to be.

Is your revulsion justified? Yes. Are you far too quick to disregard the law of the land in seeing your own brand of justice done and satisfy your personal lust for violent revenge? Hell yes. Because of one simple idea -- where's the line? Who decides? You? I'd rather leave the nation. Thankfully you're not in charge and people like you have checks and balances in this great nation to keep them from trampling everything they don't like.

Personally, I'm with the old Dennis Miller, who said that if life ever gets so bad that your only means of coping is to injure or molest a child, you need to step up to the plate, take one for the team, and kill yourself. However, that does NOT mean I'm willing to see the law subverted to have it happen.

For someone who wallows in patriotism on occasion, you certainly have a very selective view about it. Shame on you.

No kidding. Have two.

Wilgrove, I completely understand your disgust for those who would take advantage of a child. What you're failing to understand is that a very small percentage of the general human population is born, raised or through no active fault of their own becomes, well, broken.

I am no psychopathologist so I don't know the how or why, but I do know that nature and/or nurture can be as cruel as they are kind. Your attitude would have anyone who is thus afflicted jailed and summarily brutalized. Addicts, the mentally deficient, schizophrenics...basically anyone not meeting your definition of normal. And I shudder to think of how narrow that particular definition is -- and I've seen enough of your posts to get a pretty damned good idea.

Humans are supposed to have grown past the need for petty vengeance since the days of the Old Testament, when you could stone someone to death for any little transgression. Or do you not remember the Lord's Prayer?

Concepts like innocent until proven guilty and rule of law and rehabilitation aren't just convenient mantles we parade about in only when the situation is palatable to us. Much like the First Amendment protecting speech we think is just plain wrong, the due process amendments apply to everyone, no matter how foul we imagine their crimes to be.

Is your revulsion justified? Yes. Are you far too quick to disregard the law of the land in seeing your own brand of justice done and satisfy your personal lust for violent revenge? Hell yes. Because of one simple idea -- where's the line? Who decides? You? I'd rather leave the nation. Thankfully you're not in charge and people like you have checks and balances in this great nation to keep them from trampling everything they don't like.

Personally, I'm with the old Dennis Miller, who said that if life ever gets so bad that your only means of coping is to injure or molest a child, you need to step up to the plate, take one for the team, and kill yourself. However, that does NOT mean I'm willing to see the law subverted to have it happen.

For someone who wallows in patriotism on occasion, you certainly have a very selective view about it. Shame on you.

Thank you. I was too angry by what Wilgrove said to write something this sensible. Of course, I also disagree with some of what you said, but we're on the same general page when it comes to rights, which is the important thing.

As for you, Wilgrove, I apologize for my initial reaction, but I do have a question. You call yourself a libertarian, correct? So why is it you don't seem interested in protecting everyone's basic human rights?

...

Did I just commit a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

So, tonight for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list. I typed in my address and stuff, and it shows me a list of sex offenders in the vicinity of my house. It shows a map, and I noticed that some are close to a local elementary school. One of them live as close as .5 miles to the school, which I got off of Mapquest. Now North Carolina law says that a registered sex offender can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, or daycare center, basically anyplace where children may be. Now like I said, the closes one to the school is .5 miles away, which unfortunately he is legally outside 1,000 range. What is really fucked up is that this man was charged with "INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR".

I don't know...this guy MAY be legally safe, but comon, .5 miles?! Hell he can walk there! God....that is too fucking close! I even drew a straight line from his house to the school on Google Earth, and he is STILL legally safe. (It came out to 1,600 feet). I want to report this to the police, but I can't they won't be able to touch him or do anything.

Dammit....he shouldn't be that close to the school!

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?
Hey, Wil, what's the difference between this guy and the teacher that strips on the internet? Neither are doing anything illegal. Neither should be around children. But you don't mind the stripper. Why? Remind me.

Hey, Wil, what's the difference between this guy and the teacher that strips on the internet? Neither are doing anything illegal. Neither should be around children. But you don't mind the stripper. Why? Remind me.

:eek: I agree wholeheartedly with Myrmidionisia.

This is truly a great day (and I'm not being sarcastic). I'm not pickin' out china patterns or anything, but I'm glad to have finally seen myself reading one of your posts and thinking "hell yeah". I have learned about hope today (still not sarcastic).

:eek: I agree wholeheartedly with Myrmidionisia.

This is truly a great day (and I'm not being sarcastic). I'm not pickin' out china patterns or anything, but I'm glad to have finally seen myself reading one of your posts and thinking "hell yeah". I have learned about hope today (still not sarcastic).
Y'all do know that I'm pretty consistent, even to the point of being predictable. My wife calls it 'boring'.

Yea, I should be concerned about their rights.

Their rights are just as important, just as protected, and just as sacrosanct as your own. So yes, you should be concerned with them. The main question is why aren't you?

Trust Kyronea, if it was up to me, every Rapist, every Child Molester, everyone who has done something like that to an innocent victim, will be put in the General Prison Population and I'd give the order to the guards to look the other way while the other inmates take care of them.

That's exactly why it's not up to you.

Y'all do know that I'm pretty consistent, even to the point of being predictable. My wife calls it 'boring'.

I know! That's why I'm surprised. Online contacts are different than those in real life (duh, he said to himself). Were you and I co-workers, I could observe things like your preferences for food, sports teams, music -- all kinds of things, any of which I could have in common with you. Online, all I read, basically, are your opinions. Those, as you say, are predictable -- so when I find myself on the same wavelength, it's a surprise, and a good one. Not like if we were in the lunchroom and discovered we both like brisling sardines (YUM!)

I know! That's why I'm surprised. Online contacts are different than those in real life (duh, he said to himself). Were you and I co-workers, I could observe things like your preferences for food, sports teams, music -- all kinds of things, any of which I could have in common with you. Online, all I read, basically, are your opinions. Those, as you say, are predictable -- so when I find myself on the same wavelength, it's a surprise, and a good one. Not like if we were in the lunchroom and discovered we both like brisling sardines (YUM!)
The rest isn't any better. Up at 5:30. A bowl of Raisin Bran. Answer email. Bother my employees. Leftovers for lunch...

Though, I am surprised when I find someone willing to admit they agree with me.

The rest isn't any better. Up at 5:30. A bowl of Raisin Bran. Answer email. Bother my employees. Leftovers for lunch...

Though, I am surprised when I find someone willing to admit they agree with me.

I LOVE RAISIN BRAN! Seriously -- and I'm up at 6am, so you have me there, and I don't have employees, I have students, but po-tay-toh/po-tah-toh.

The rest isn't any better. Up at 5:30. A bowl of Raisin Bran. Answer email. Bother my employees. Leftovers for lunch...

Though, I am surprised when I find someone willing to admit they agree with me.

Meh. RIGHT NOW I agree with you.

I LOVE RAISIN BRAN! Seriously -- and I'm up at 6am, so you have me there, and I don't have employees, I have students, but po-tay-toh/po-tah-toh.

There was a time that I used to harass my students, too. Then I figured out that the perks of academia weren't contributing to my retirement as fast as a bigger salary and stock options would. Georgia Tech just couldn't match the private sector when it came to money.

I guess we're all waiting for Wil to come back and tell us the difference between a stripper and a guy convicted of indecent liberties with a minor, whatever the hell that was.

Y'all remember the Genaro Wilson case, don't you? The minor that was convicted for having sex with another, younger minor?

He did finally get released from prison and the state hasn't tried to put him back, yet.

Anyway, my point is that these sex-offender registries are pretty far-reaching.

They do when they decide to harm another person. It doesn't matter if it's molestation, or rape, or even assault. The moment you lay your hand on that person without their consent, your rights just ended.
That's wide enough to cover many, many crimes, including some non-crimes. If two (adult) people were both drunk and had sex then both should be sent to gaol, as neither could have consented to what the other did.

This subject is difficult.

Even at the periphery, in debates about the age of consent, or debates about the rights of parents over children, many posters get worked up and start attacking anyone who isn't unequivocally on their side.

Now, Wilgrove is no spring chicken. He's been right there in many rough discussions about the law, he's been in threads that have been locked for being too flammable. He must surely be aware of the risks of such a discussion causing flames, bannings and lasting grudges.

And what does he kick this off with? "[T]onight for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list."

You came looking for trouble, Wilgrove. I hope that when you log back in, you'll look at the relatively mild rebukes from posters as senior as yourself, and really look at why you raised this subject, and why you raised it without a concrete example but instead as a "with me or against me, let's have a witch-hunt" invitation to a flamefest.

I could speculate about why you want to see other posters playing with your hate-toys, but I'd probably just sound silly. I'm not your conscience. I'm not even my own conscience (a childish thing which speaks in incomplete sentences, but rules me nonetheless.)

I suggest you look there. In your conscience. Intangelon saved me from a far ruder reply (the sort which would get me a ban) and I'm sorely tempted to echo Int's sentiment "shame on you." But there is something dreadfully frank and revealing about that very first sentence of the first post, and I'll quote it for a third time: "for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list."

Look in your conscience. What the hell is fun about hate? Why did you make this thread? Is it possible that you are feeling hate towards someone or something you are not allowed to feel that towards, and you come here looking for someone to share your hate, voice it towards the target of convenience ... while all the time you are reading it in your personal terms? What, or who, do you really hate?

It's OK to feel hate. Like feeling pain, I would never blame you or find fault with you for feeling hate. But seeking it out, wallowing in it, trying to spread it around all your friends ... let's just say, it is very unattractive behaviour.

I wish you luck in your self-examination, Wilgrove.

:eek: I agree wholeheartedly with Myrmidonisia.

That was bound to happen. Myrmi is a quality right-winger, and always worth reading.

My thoughts are, some have it a little worse than others as far as their neighbors go ...:
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8165552
http://www.fortmilltimes.com/124/story/132777.html

So ... with malice aforethought?

On another note, I clicked your link and the add at the top had a very surprised looking dog, a man behind it and the text, "Bow-wow! Whats Oreo so excited about?" Thats just fantastic ad placement isn't it?

Yea but comon....he shouldn't be THAT close to a school! Especially with what he was charged with on the NC Sex Offender Registry. It's too close for comfort...

why don't you go print out his picture and take it to the principal of the school as a "Concerned citizen" they probably have high security for non-parentals on the premises anyway and stuff though.

Kids are told to stay away from strangers outside of school. It wouldn't really matter where he lived, he will have access to kids. They just have to stay away from people they don't know.

So, tonight for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list. I typed in my address and stuff, and it shows me a list of sex offenders in the vicinity of my house. It shows a map, and I noticed that some are close to a local elementary school. One of them live as close as .5 miles to the school, which I got off of Mapquest. Now North Carolina law says that a registered sex offender can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, or daycare center, basically anyplace where children may be. Now like I said, the closes one to the school is .5 miles away, which unfortunately he is legally outside 1,000 range. What is really fucked up is that this man was charged with "INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR".

I don't know...this guy MAY be legally safe, but comon, .5 miles?! Hell he can walk there! God....that is too fucking close! I even drew a straight line from his house to the school on Google Earth, and he is STILL legally safe. (It came out to 1,600 feet). I want to report this to the police, but I can't they won't be able to touch him or do anything.

Dammit....he shouldn't be that close to the school!

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?

You have a giant "PROUD LIBERTARIAN" in your sig, but you seem to be leaning more towards authoritarianism.

Given the froth-mouthed paranoia (http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=17197) involved in the sex offender registries, I'm ill-inclined to put much stock in them. Dude's obeying the rules, you're NOT going to completely protect yourself from any relapsing offender, and the justice system is NOT a proactive one. Until he does something, leave him alone.

People feel about this subject more than they think about it.

Which is unfortunate. Feeling strongly about it has led to some pretty ridiculous abortions of justice.

Which is unfortunate. Feeling strongly about it has led to some pretty ridiculous abortions of justice.As the victim of a sex offender I feel strongly. As I do as the sister of another sex offender. But I try to think to find sensible solution.

Hey, Wil, what's the difference between this guy and the teacher that strips on the internet? Neither are doing anything illegal. Neither should be around children. But you don't mind the stripper. Why? Remind me.

Because the Stripper is not imposing his/her will onto the children. Once they start molesting the children, then I don't want them around the children.

Thank you. I was too angry by what Wilgrove said to write something this sensible. Of course, I also disagree with some of what you said, but we're on the same general page when it comes to rights, which is the important thing.

As for you, Wilgrove, I apologize for my initial reaction, but I do have a question. You call yourself a libertarian, correct? So why is it you don't seem interested in protecting everyone's basic human rights?

...

Did I just commit a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

*sigh* Do I have to re-chant my political stance every month?

Ok, here is the short version. Government function is to protect your rights, via military and police. You can do whatever the hell you want, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others!

Get it, Got it, Good.

So, tonight for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list. I typed in my address and stuff, and it shows me a list of sex offenders in the vicinity of my house. It shows a map, and I noticed that some are close to a local elementary school. One of them live as close as .5 miles to the school, which I got off of Mapquest. Now North Carolina law says that a registered sex offender can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, or daycare center, basically anyplace where children may be. Now like I said, the closes one to the school is .5 miles away, which unfortunately he is legally outside 1,000 range. What is really fucked up is that this man was charged with "INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR".

I don't know...this guy MAY be legally safe, but comon, .5 miles?! Hell he can walk there! God....that is too fucking close! I even drew a straight line from his house to the school on Google Earth, and he is STILL legally safe. (It came out to 1,600 feet). I want to report this to the police, but I can't they won't be able to touch him or do anything.

Dammit....he shouldn't be that close to the school!

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/3/9/e/39e4290d7705109775192cb5be181651.jpg

*sigh* Do I have to re-chant my political stance every month?

Ok, here is the short version. Government function is to protect your rights, via military and police. You can do whatever the hell you want, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others!

Get it, Got it, Good.

Exactly! So why are you calling for mob justice on someone who is following the law? They were released from their sentence and until they do something, all you'd be doing is infringing on their rights.

Thank you for proving your hypocrisy. Have a nice day.

i recommend that you never look at the sex offender registry site again. it has unbalanced your mind.

your state legislature has decided the rules and this guy is following those rules. you are obsessing over a man who is obeying the law. what is going to happen to you when you realize that there are far more dangerous people out there who do not follow the law and have not been caught yet?

Because the Stripper is not imposing his/her will onto the children.

What an odd turn of phrase. IMS you don't have kids Wil, so lets give you a Hypothetical Son. And let's say his room is a mess. Naturally you'll tell him to clean it(he is old enough to clean it himself, after all). Shock horror, he doesn't want to. You insist, maybe tell him he can't watch TV until his room is clean. He cleans his room. Congrats, you just imposed your will on your son. Just like millions of other parents do to their children every day. Are they as bad as child molesters? Obviously not.

What an odd turn of phrase. IMS you don't have kids Wil, so lets give you a Hypothetical Son. And let's say his room is a mess. Naturally you'll tell him to clean it(he is old enough to clean it himself, after all). Shock horror, he doesn't want to. You insist, maybe tell him he can't watch TV until his room is clean. He cleans his room. Congrats, you just imposed your will on your son. Just like millions of other parents do to their children every day. Are they as bad as child molesters? Obviously not.

I think his point was that the stripper teacher (Where were these ladies when I was in school, dammit?) would be stripping distinctly from their activities with children. They don't lock the classroom door and start dancing.

Because the Stripper is not imposing his/her will onto the children. Once they start molesting the children, then I don't want them around the children.
But there are any number of ways you can make the sex-offender registry aside from molestation. The Wilson case is a good example. Consensual sex between minors, yet Wilson ends up a sex-offender. The registry and state laws don't discriminate.

Much like the First Amendment protecting speech we think is just plain wrong, the due process amendments apply to everyone, no matter how foul we imagine their crimes to be.


Not true, actually. If you're on probation/parole, your due process rights are usually gone or strictly limited. It isn't unconstitutional because probation/parole is a privilege, rather than a right - you can do your time rather than accept the terms.

Unfortunately I can't find the sources at the moment to back this up -- there was a really good article in the New Yorker or the Atlantic or one of those snooty magazines I read -- but in the limited time we've had Megan Kanka/Adam Walsh laws on the books, the evidence seems to indicate that the more restrictive you are on where sex offenders can live (i.e. the increase in minimum distance from school/playground/park/etc. they have to maintain) the more likely they are simply to risk not registering, because they can't find anywhere to live. Some of them get caught but many don't because the police are focused on other matters -- among them, actual crime with actual victims, not somebody who's served their time living at an inappropriate address.

So really, by all means, chase the sex offenders out of town. It's better if we don't know where they are, right?

Snip.

Fascinating. I cannot help but notice that you did not answer my posts.

That was bound to happen. Myrmi is a quality right-winger, and always worth reading.

Agreed.

*sigh* Do I have to re-chant my political stance every month?

Ok, here is the short version. Government function is to protect your rights, via military and police. You can do whatever the hell you want, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others!

Get it, Got it, Good.

Uh-huh. And the guy you looked up is doing whatever the hell he wants at the prescribed distance from the school. He's following the state's rules, and it's got you upset for reasons nobody knows but could probably guess. He's received his sentence and is serving it. Next case.

Not true, actually. If you're on probation/parole, your due process rights are usually gone or strictly limited. It isn't unconstitutional because probation/parole is a privilege, rather than a right - you can do your time rather than accept the terms.

Actually quite true. Someone on probation is serving the terms of a sentence. He's already had his due process and his limited liberty is part of his debt to society. As you say, if he doesn't like it, he can choose to serve time in jail. Due process was still followed, regardless of whether we agree with it or not, and regardless of how unsavory we might consider his crime.

Fascinating. I cannot help but notice that you did not answer my posts.

He seldom replies to posts that have him dead to rights.

He seldom replies to posts that have him dead to rights.

He might do well to know that not replying when he clearly is able equals accepting the point.

My wife calls it 'boring'.That's why she has such an interesting extracurricular persona. :p

Actually quite true. Someone on probation is serving the terms of a sentence. He's already had his due process and his limited liberty is part of his debt to society. As you say, if he doesn't like it, he can choose to serve time in jail. Due process was still followed, regardless of whether we agree with it or not, and regardless of how unsavory we might consider his crime.

It's all nice and legal, of course. I just meant that, as a matter of social policy, due process rights aren't exactly sacred. The choice between signing many of your rights away and going to prison isn't much of a choice. Not that I'm too sympathetic in the case of sex offenders, but that was the idea.

Wilgrove might cream in his pants since Texas has been trying to pass a law that would make child molestation a capital crime punishable by death:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1616890,00.html

After all, let's encourage pedophiles to take things one step further and kill the kids since they're going to fry whether or not the child's still alive. Or better yet, let's take the law one step further and make any sort of sex offense a capital crime. Pornographers and voyeurs, beware.

I think his point was that the stripper teacher (Where were these ladies when I was in school, dammit?) would be stripping distinctly from their activities with children. They don't lock the classroom door and start dancing.
I know. I just felt that my little hypothetical nicely highlighted how that was a bad way of putting it.
Wilgrove might cream in his pants since Texas has been trying to pass a law that would make child molestation a capital crime punishable by death:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1616890,00.html

After all, let's encourage pedophiles to take things one step further and kill the kids since they're going to fry whether or not the child's still alive. Or better yet, let's take the law one step further and make any sort of sex offense a capital crime. Pornographers and voyeurs, beware.

Oh Texas. It's almost as if they're trying to live up to the stereotypes.

Oh Texas. It's almost as if they're trying to live up to the stereotypes.

It is the spiritual home of Bushevism, after all.

I know. I just felt that my little hypothetical nicely highlighted how that was a bad way of putting it.


Oh Texas. It's almost as if they're trying to live up to the stereotypes.

The fun part being, a man was just released from prison 23 years after being jailed for a rape he did not commit.

I mean, had it been death sentence for him, they'd have to raise him from the dead,

BUT THEY FUCKING CAN'T, NOW CAN THEY?

The fun part being, a man was just released from prison 23 years after being jailed for a rape he did not commit.

I mean, had it been death sentence for him, they'd have to raise him from the dead,

BUT THEY FUCKING CAN'T, NOW CAN THEY?

:fluffle:

:fluffle:

*Bows*

Wilgrove might cream in his pants since Texas has been trying to pass a law that would make child molestation a capital crime punishable by death:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1616890,00.html

After all, let's encourage pedophiles to take things one step further and kill the kids since they're going to fry whether or not the child's still alive. Or better yet, let's take the law one step further and make any sort of sex offense a capital crime. Pornographers and voyeurs, beware.

yeah lets not make the sentences for crimes tougher out of fear of how the criminals will react to it! why not just give them a slap on the wrist, maybe then they will be REAL gentle with their victims if they know they won't be punished that badly.

of course i don't support the death penalty to begin with but still the idea about deciding sentences on how the criminal will react to its being implimented if caught is just foolish and caving in to fear

maybe your over reacting. as i read his crime it just sounds like he is a flasher. and who knows maybe eh was wearing a big trench coat and a gust of wind blew it up in front of a kid by accident.

yeah lets not make the sentences for crimes tougher out of fear of how the criminals will react to it! why not just give them a slap on the wrist, maybe then they will be REAL gentle with their victims if they know they won't be punished that badly.

of course i don't support the death penalty to begin with but still the idea about deciding sentences on how the criminal will react to its being implimented if caught is just foolish and caving in to fear

As opposed to encouraging repeat pedophiles to jump straight into murder just because they'd be executed regardless of whether or not they decide to keep the child alive? Real humanitarian there. You'd probably shout "Go ahead, shoot them you fuckers!" as a hostage negotiator.

yeah lets not make the sentences for crimes tougher out of fear of how the criminals will react to it! why not just give them a slap on the wrist, maybe then they will be REAL gentle with their victims if they know they won't be punished that badly.

of course i don't support the death penalty to begin with but still the idea about deciding sentences on how the criminal will react to its being implimented if caught is just foolish and caving in to fear

The problem is death penalty results in NOTHING left to lose. It's not about leniency, it's about the possibility of worsening it. There isn't one with death sentence. What will they do, inject him with MORE poison?

As opposed to encouraging repeat pedophiles to jump straight into murder just because they'd be executed regardless of whether or not they decide to keep the child alive? Real humanitarian there. You'd probably shout "Go ahead, shoot them you fuckers!" as a hostage negotiator.

I would say that even among pedophiles there is only a minority that could go so far as to actually kill them. And they would kill them regardless of the punishment received after being caught. Like I said I really don't feel like deciding punishments on how criminals MAY react to it, we aren't supposed to be afraid of how they react after all, criminals are supposed to be afraid of the LAW and how it will react to THEIR actions. I would rather hope as much as i dislike the death penalty that hopefully it will encourage pedos to find another outlet for their desires then to grab a child instead of your dire alternative.

Don't get your panties in a knot. Guys like that have to complete a therapy course before their sentencing obligations are complete, and as a result of that policy sex crimes have some of the lowest repeat offense incidents next to, like, murder. (According to a 2004 DOJ report).

The kids in that school have more to fear from the crap they're served at lunch than from this guy.

Without knowing the how's and why's of this case it's impossible to second guess the legal system. At this point all I can do is trust that the people overseeing his probation are doing an appropriate job.

*snip* Like I said I really don't feel like deciding punishments on how criminals MAY react to it, we aren't supposed to be afraid of how they react after all, criminals are supposed to be afraid of the LAW and how it will react to THEIR actions. *snip*

Are you getting confused there? You seem to quite correctly discern that the point of punishment is to make a person (NOT criminal yet) reconsider a crime they may commit. Not so much fear as a quite rational decision that the crime isn't worth committing.

Then you say this odd thing "we aren't supposed to be afraid of how they react." How people react to prospective punishment is absolutely vital, it's the very point of punishment!

So I can't see what you're trying to prove there. You didn't lay a glove on Gauthier's point either.

Are you getting confused there? You seem to quite correctly discern that the point of punishment is to make a person (NOT criminal yet) reconsider a crime they may commit. Not so much fear as a quite rational decision that the crime isn't worth committing.

Then you say this odd thing "we aren't supposed to be afraid of how they react." How people react to prospective punishment is absolutely vital, it's the very point of punishment!

So I can't see what you're trying to prove there. You didn't lay a glove on Gauthier's point either.

one big thing that should be avoided is to have the punishment make worse crimes more likely. better to go "easy" on criminals than to punish more harshly and end up with more murdered children.

one big thing that should be avoided is to have the punishment make worse crimes more likely. better to go "easy" on criminals than to punish more harshly and end up with more murdered children.

Yes, I think we agree on that. And I think that was the point that Gauthier was making too.

Yes, I think we agree on that. And I think that was the point that Gauthier was making too.

yupyup

its an important point.

we already have too many laws that are counterproductive. no sense adding more.

Are you getting confused there? You seem to quite correctly discern that the point of punishment is to make a person (NOT criminal yet) reconsider a crime they may commit. Not so much fear as a quite rational decision that the crime isn't worth committing.

Then you say this odd thing "we aren't supposed to be afraid of how they react." How people react to prospective punishment is absolutely vital, it's the very point of punishment!

So I can't see what you're trying to prove there. You didn't lay a glove on Gauthier's point either.

I frankly couldn't understand his point either. And what i meant was that we shouldn't worry that by making a punishment severe we may make the criminal commit a more serious crime like murder so he could get away with his other crime. We shouldn't be worrying about such things as we are the ones who are supposed to be enforcing the law not that a criminal MAY commit a more serious crime as a result. Might as well legalize everything if we go down that road as people will "do it anyway". It just doesn't work.

But if they don't commit the crime as a result of the law then yes that is the reaction we hope for and is very important. :)

and fear to me is exactly what the law is about. a good number of people in my opinion don't follow the law out of any respect for it or out of some moral code about right and wrong but because they fear the consequences of getting caught. They don't want to go to jail. They are afraid. So i don't know what other term would be good to describe it but that the law puts fear into potential criminals who would otherwise commit those acts without hesitation.

The problem is death penalty results in NOTHING left to lose. It's not about leniency, it's about the possibility of worsening it. There isn't one with death sentence. What will they do, inject him with MORE poison?

Don't be silly. They'll inject him with a more painful poison.

Don't be silly. They'll inject him with a more painful poison.

:p

no one wonders why this would be fun?

no one wonders why this would be fun?I thought i provided some helpful links ....

Thoughts?

Well.. if he were 18 when he had his 16 year old girlfriend he would probably get on the list that way. Not really a danger to society then IMO.

Problem is you do not know if it was something like that, or him going around schools to ask little kids to suck the sea-men out of his hose. Which is why those sites you use are so bloody useless.

Yea, because we def. need to make life better for the rapist, child molester, incesters, for the dad, daughter, aunt, uncle, and the stranger down the street who ruined a life of an innocence person because they can't keep it in their pants. Yea, I should be concerned about their rights. :rolleyes: Trust Kyronea, if it was up to me, every Rapist, every Child Molester, everyone who has done something like that to an innocent victim, will be put in the General Prison Population and I'd give the order to the guards to look the other way while the other inmates take care of them. They do not deserve special protection, they do not deserve to have their thoughts and feelings considered, they lost ALL of that when they decide to lay their first hand on their victim. After that, they revoked their rights.

Remember, MY rights end, where YOUR nose begins.

You can feel sorry for the criminals and sick bastards if you want, but I'll be on the victim's side thank you very much.

How ironic. A "Proud Libertarian" talking about "revoking" people's basic rights.

What an odd turn of phrase. IMS you don't have kids Wil, so lets give you a Hypothetical Son. And let's say his room is a mess. Naturally you'll tell him to clean it(he is old enough to clean it himself, after all). Shock horror, he doesn't want to. You insist, maybe tell him he can't watch TV until his room is clean. He cleans his room. Congrats, you just imposed your will on your son. Just like millions of other parents do to their children every day. Are they as bad as child molesters? Obviously not.

Your analogy fails. That is what a parent is supposed to do, they're supposed to raise their children to be upstanding citizens of this country. You KNOW what kind of will I'm talking about and you KNOW what I meant by that.

Try again.

Uh-huh. And the guy you looked up is doing whatever the hell he wants at the prescribed distance from the school. He's following the state's rules, and it's got you upset for reasons nobody knows but could probably guess. He's received his sentence and is serving it. Next case.

Exactly! So why are you calling for mob justice on someone who is following the law? They were released from their sentence and until they do something, all you'd be doing is infringing on their rights.

Thank you for proving your hypocrisy. Have a nice day.

Funny about how we're susspose to be concern about the rights of the criminals. But what about the rights of the victim, what about the right to a speedy trial? Let's just forget the fact that he got off light (comon 36 months for what he did...) Let's look at the fact that they kept pushing the court date back and back until they eventually settled out of court.

Yea, so what were you saying about the "rights" of criminals as opposed to the rights of victims?

This is what serial killers typically say right before they kill their victims.

Anthony hopkins always made me think that it was something along the lines of "If you don't have something polite to say don't say anything at all."

Funny about how we're susspose to be concern about the rights of the criminals. But what about the rights of the victim, what about the right to a speedy trial?

You will have to choose: convict as few innocents as possible or have speedy trials.

Well.. if he were 18 when he had his 16 year old girlfriend he would probably get on the list that way. Not really a danger to society then IMO.

Problem is you do not know if it was something like that, or him going around schools to ask little kids to suck the sea-men out of his hose. Which is why those sites you use are so bloody useless.
I am aquainted with a registerd sex offender that became a sex offender the exact same way. Only he was 19 and his girlffriend was 17. They didn't even have sex, they just messed around. The girl had fundie parents who were okay with ruining a boy's life if that meant keeping their daughter a virgin. Funny thing was, the girl get herself pregnant by another guy a month after he went to jail.

You're 100% right, not all sex offenders are created equal.

Funny about how we're susspose to be concern about the rights of the criminals. But what about the rights of the victim, what about the right to a speedy trial? Let's just forget the fact that he got off light (comon 36 months for what he did...) Let's look at the fact that they kept pushing the court date back and back until they eventually settled out of court.

Yea, so what were you saying about the "rights" of criminals as opposed to the rights of victims?

Care to actually link to a news article about this guy? None of us have any info besides the ambigious discription the sex offender registry gave. I think most people on here are far too reasonable to catagorically condemn someone when we don't know the crime they were convicted of.

The vast majority of sex offenders don't actually go 'hunting for children'.

Let's look at the fact that they kept pushing the court date back and back until they eventually settled out of court.

Ahhh, the ubiquitous "they"... :rolleyes:

How ironic. A "Proud Libertarian" talking about "revoking" people's basic rights.

Lots of people show their true colors when it becomes fashionable to put down a particular category of people.

Once a person pays their debt to society, as defined by the judge and attorneys in a criminal case, that's supposed to be the end of it. You can't punish someone for a crime you think they'll commit.

Hey, Wil, what's the difference between this guy and the teacher that strips on the internet? Neither are doing anything illegal. Neither should be around children. But you don't mind the stripper. Why? Remind me.

As long as said striper doesn't STRIP around children why shouldn't they be around children?

It's all nice and legal, of course. I just meant that, as a matter of social policy, due process rights aren't exactly sacred. The choice between signing many of your rights away and going to prison isn't much of a choice. Not that I'm too sympathetic in the case of sex offenders, but that was the idea.

Fair enough. You're a reasonable fellow, TPC.

Wilgrove might cream in his pants since Texas has been trying to pass a law that would make child molestation a capital crime punishable by death:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1616890,00.html

After all, let's encourage pedophiles to take things one step further and kill the kids since they're going to fry whether or not the child's still alive. Or better yet, let's take the law one step further and make any sort of sex offense a capital crime. Pornographers and voyeurs, beware.

Voyeurs?!? :eek: :( Time for a new hobby...but...but I like to watch.

Funny about how we're susspose to be concern about the rights of the criminals. But what about the rights of the victim, what about the right to a speedy trial? Let's just forget the fact that he got off light (comon 36 months for what he did...) Let's look at the fact that they kept pushing the court date back and back until they eventually settled out of court.

Yea, so what were you saying about the "rights" of criminals as opposed to the rights of victims?

We were saying that things like the capability of the state to prove a case has nothing to do with your point. We don't know if three years is enough time because you can't link to anything that actually tells us what the person in question did.

Rights of the accused may not be as popular as rights of victims, but if we ignore the unpopular rights, how long before other rights suffer the same fate? We all -- even the detestable -- get equal treatment, or none of us do. That's the idea, at any rate.

Care to actually link to a news article about this guy? None of us have any info besides the ambigious discription the sex offender registry gave. I think most people on here are far too reasonable to catagorically condemn someone when we don't know the crime they were convicted of.

This.

I am aquainted with a registerd sex offender that became a sex offender the exact same way. Only he was 19 and his girlffriend was 17. They didn't even have sex, they just messed around. The girl had fundie parents who were okay with ruining a boy's life if that meant keeping their daughter a virgin. Funny thing was, the girl get herself pregnant by another guy a month after he went to jail.

You're 100% right, not all sex offenders are created equal.

This is why over here you have to be over 21 to be a paedophile, unless there is 5 year plus gap between the people involved.

Funny about how we're susspose to be concern about the rights of the criminals. But what about the rights of the victim, what about the right to a speedy trial? Let's just forget the fact that he got off light (comon 36 months for what he did...)


We still don't know what that is. Three pages on the maximum posts per page and you have yet to tell us.

Sex Offender registries and Guantanamo Bay have something in common in the United States. They're both critical stigmas to the average American who will happily condemn whoever happens to be in either one with a "If they're on it they must have done something unspeakably wrong" mentality without even bothering to figure out exactly why that person was placed there to begin with.

There's a sex offender who lives in my neighborhood. He's a 60-year-old priest (note that I didn't say former; last I checked, he still works at his church) and he keeps to himself most of the time. When I have seen him outside, walking his dog, he looks completely miserable. Nobody ever talks to him or even casually greets him.

Somebody like that, in my opinion, has already been punished enough.

As long as said striper doesn't STRIP around children why shouldn't they be around children?
You had your chance with the teacher thread. I don't want to rehash it, but we expect better character from our teachers than we do from our Jiffy-Lube mechanics. Baring it all, either on stage, or on the internet, doesn't seem like the kind of moral behavior we've come to expect from those that care for our kids.

If you want to take that up again, find the thread about the teacher that got fired for stripping on the internet.

You had your chance with the teacher thread. I don't want to rehash it, but we expect better character from our teachers than we do from our Jiffy-Lube mechanics. Baring it all, either on stage, or on the internet, doesn't seem like the kind of moral behavior we've come to expect from those that care for our kids.

If you want to take that up again, find the thread about the teacher that got fired for stripping on the internet.

being naked is immoral? naked people have bad character? do you shower with your swim trunks on?

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The vast majority of sex offenders don't actually go 'hunting for children'.

How right you are. It is best to leave a trail of candy and let them come to you.

How right you are. It is best to leave a trail of candy and let them come to you.

Voice of experience?
:p

Voice of experience?
:p

I'll get back to you on that.. Let me just ward off this lynch mob first.

You had your chance with the teacher thread. I don't want to rehash it, but we expect better character from our teachers than we do from our Jiffy-Lube mechanics. Baring it all, either on stage, or on the internet, doesn't seem like the kind of moral behavior we've come to expect from those that care for our kids.

If you want to take that up again, find the thread about the teacher that got fired for stripping on the internet.

That was startlingly non answery of you. Being away from the board for about a week I didn't really have much of a chance to participate in that thread. Besides it was THIS thread in which you equated strippers with dangerous pedophiles. What exactly is "immoral" about stripping?

Dammit....he shouldn't be that close to the school!

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?

What would you do, if you could? Use the law to strongarm a guy who's already paid for a terrible crime and is trying to live on as best he can? Libertarian my ass. Poser.

You're no different from a statist. You're just as likely to want to use Government power to get your way as they are. The only difference is you try to justify it by dehumanizing those who you would victimize.

If I found out such a person lived next door to me would I care? No. I already teach my kids to avoid strangers and frankly, with the therapy that's given to people in that category of crimes, I have more to fear from the average person than from someone who's received such treatment. It's the ones who haven't been caught you need to concern yourself with, not the ones who are already being watched by the cops.

Funny about how we're susspose to be concern about the rights of the criminals. But what about the rights of the victim, what about the right to a speedy trial? Let's just forget the fact that he got off light (comon 36 months for what he did...) Let's look at the fact that they kept pushing the court date back and back until they eventually settled out of court.

Yea, so what were you saying about the "rights" of criminals as opposed to the rights of victims?
Which rights is it you wish to remove from the criminal?

How was the rights of the victim to a speedy trial (it's supposed to be the accused that gets the right to a speedy trial, but I'll ask you anyways) violated in this case?

What are you on about?

I am aquainted with a registerd sex offender that became a sex offender the exact same way. Only he was 19 and his girlffriend was 17. They didn't even have sex, they just messed around. The girl had fundie parents who were okay with ruining a boy's life if that meant keeping their daughter a virgin. Funny thing was, the girl get herself pregnant by another guy a month after he went to jail.

You're 100% right, not all sex offenders are created equal.
Don't know about NC, but the Free Press studied the "sex offender" list in Michigan and found that the majority, in fact an overwhelming majority, were cases like what Snafturi describes.

Funny about how we're susspose to be concern about the rights of the criminals. But what about the rights of the victim, what about the right to a speedy trial? Let's just forget the fact that he got off light (comon 36 months for what he did...) Let's look at the fact that they kept pushing the court date back and back until they eventually settled out of court.

Yea, so what were you saying about the "rights" of criminals as opposed to the rights of victims?
I would bet that you become much more concerned about rights for criminals the next time you go to court -- traffic court, anything. A criminal doesn't forfeit rights. He can't. Rights are inalienable. In fact, it's even more important to protect the rights of people that we just don't care for --- terrorists, criminals, yes, even sex-offenders.

Sorry, but I think you need to take the Libertarian out of your .sig and replace it with something more appropriate --- how about Populist? Or, maybe Demagogue?

That was startlingly non answery of you. Being away from the board for about a week I didn't really have much of a chance to participate in that thread. Besides it was THIS thread in which you equated strippers with dangerous pedophiles. What exactly is "immoral" about stripping?
It's a side trip that I'm not going to make. Wil understood the reference. And because your inability to use the search function appeals to me, here is the thread I mentioned.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554422

It became pointless pretty quickly and this one shouldn't suffer the same fate.

I would bet that you become much more concerned about rights for criminals the next time you go to court -- traffic court, anything. A criminal doesn't forfeit rights. He can't. Rights are inalienable.

But ... we refer to rights all the time which aren't really inalienable. A right to freedom of association, or freedom of speech, both of which are pretty much suspended when a person is jailed.

Just another example of a word that's been so persistently misused (deliberately perhaps) that it really is time to find a new one. I guess "inalienable rights" would work like you mean.

But ... we refer to rights all the time which aren't really inalienable. A right to freedom of association, or freedom of speech, both of which are pretty much suspended when a person is jailed.

Just another example of a word that's been so persistently misused (deliberately perhaps) that it really is time to find a new one. I guess "inalienable rights" would work like you mean.
I was probably off on a track that made sense at the time, but come on... An alleged criminal has all the the rights of anyone else up until the time that he's convicted. Post conviction, it's a different story. It has to be. Now the real trick is what rights does a convicted criminal have after he's served his sentence?

Now the real trick is what rights does a convicted criminal have after he's served his sentence?
The "sentence" means the entirety of what the criminal has forfeited. If he is "done" with his sentence, he has the same rights as anybody else. If you think that in the case of sex offenders, the sentence should include lifelong restrictions, even if the sentence is not life in prison, that is a reasonable position; but changing the sentence after the fact is not reasonable.

Don't know about NC, but the Free Press studied the "sex offender" list in Michigan and found that the majority, in fact an overwhelming majority, were cases like what Snafturi describes.

That's pretty interesting.

You don't have a link or anything do you?

So, tonight for fun I decided to check the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry list. I typed in my address and stuff, and it shows me a list of sex offenders in the vicinity of my house. It shows a map, and I noticed that some are close to a local elementary school. One of them live as close as .5 miles to the school, which I got off of Mapquest. Now North Carolina law says that a registered sex offender can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, or daycare center, basically anyplace where children may be. Now like I said, the closes one to the school is .5 miles away, which unfortunately he is legally outside 1,000 range. What is really fucked up is that this man was charged with "INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR".

I don't know...this guy MAY be legally safe, but comon, .5 miles?! Hell he can walk there! God....that is too fucking close! I even drew a straight line from his house to the school on Google Earth, and he is STILL legally safe. (It came out to 1,600 feet). I want to report this to the police, but I can't they won't be able to touch him or do anything.

Dammit....he shouldn't be that close to the school!

I know that the lawyers on here are probably going to say there's nothing I can do, but fuck...just fuck....

Thoughts?

Okay, firstly, you have a very strange definition of fun.

Secondly, you do realize that, given the spread of schools throughout populated places and the general availability of public transport, he's going to be able to reach several schools wherever he lives, right?

This system is bloody stupid. If he's a danger, lock him up. If he's not, leave him alone.

I would bet that you become much more concerned about rights for criminals the next time you go to court -- traffic court, anything. A criminal doesn't forfeit rights. He can't. Rights are inalienable. In fact, it's even more important to protect the rights of people that we just don't care for --- terrorists, criminals, yes, even sex-offenders.

Sorry, but I think you need to take the Libertarian out of your .sig and replace it with something more appropriate --- how about Populist? Or, maybe Demagogue?

You surprise me, Myrmi, with how good at arguing you become when you actually apply yourself.

The "sentence" means the entirety of what the criminal has forfeited. If he is "done" with his sentence, he has the same rights as anybody else. If you think that in the case of sex offenders, the sentence should include lifelong restrictions, even if the sentence is not life in prison, that is a reasonable position; but changing the sentence after the fact is not reasonable.
But we don't restore all rights for most felons. They can't own guns. They can't vote in federal elections(not really a right). There are probably other can'ts that have carried over from days past.

A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry a gun, for instance. Is a newly-released felon that was convicted of armed robbery a good risk? How 'bout ten years down the road?

We should be able to answer those questions with respect to sex-offenders, too. How long, short of never, is a sex-offender a good risk to be around kids? That's something our one-size-fits-all justice system doesn't want to address.

That's pretty interesting.

You don't have a link or anything do you?
I will search, it was not too long ago so I should be able to find it.

Myrmi: the lifelong restrictions are part of the sentence. That's fine, if that's what we decide; in some case we impose lifelong imprisonment. What I am objecting to is deciding to tack something else on later.

What would you do, if you could? Use the law to strongarm a guy who's already paid for a terrible crime and is trying to live on as best he can? Libertarian my ass. Poser.

You're no different from a statist. You're just as likely to want to use Government power to get your way as they are. The only difference is you try to justify it by dehumanizing those who you would victimize.



Sorry, but I think you need to take the Libertarian out of your .sig and replace it with something more appropriate --- how about Populist? Or, maybe Demagogue?


These.

i recommend that you never look at the sex offender registry site again. it has unbalanced your mind.

your state legislature has decided the rules and this guy is following those rules. you are obsessing over a man who is obeying the law. what is going to happen to you when you realize that there are far more dangerous people out there who do not follow the law and have not been caught yet?
No doubt a short trip to 'Lynch-Mobs R Us' for rope, tar and feathers. Please leave your rationalism at the door.
The scariest thing is that Wilgrove will actually convince himself he's doing good by destroying that man's life, running him out of town and ensuring the next place he goes to, he lies so no-one knows about his past.

correct me if I'm wrong but 0.5miles is something like 2600 feet, is it not?
Which means we have Wilgrove railing against a convicted sex offender who is fully complying with the law by living almost 3 times the minimum legal distance away from a school.
If that's such a problem to Wilgrove, then maybe he should be lobbying his local governance to have it changed, rather than organising a witchhunt against a man who is, by Wilgrove's own account, is more than complying with the law as it stands. Though one wonders what distance would be acceptable to Wilgrove. 1 mile? 5? 100?

No doubt a short trip to 'Lynch-Mobs R Us' for rope, tar and feathers. Please leave your rationalism at the door.
The scariest thing is that Wilgrove will actually convince himself he's doing good by destroying that man's life, running him out of town and ensuring the next place he goes to, he lies so no-one knows about his past.

correct me if I'm wrong but 0.5miles is something like 2600 feet, is it not?
Which means we have Wilgrove railing against a convicted sex offender who is fully complying with the law by living almost 3 times the minimum legal distance away from a school.
If that's such a problem to Wilgrove, then maybe he should be lobbying his local governance to have it changed, rather than organising a witchhunt against a man who is, by Wilgrove's own account, is more than complying with the law as it stands. Though one wonders what distance would be acceptable to Wilgrove. 1 mile? 5? 100?

Either the Moon, or Six Feet Under.

That's pretty interesting.

You don't have a link or anything do you?
I went into the Free Press archives, and found alas that they want to pay for looking at any old articles. Brian Dickerson (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=freep&f_site=freep&f_sitename=Detroit+Free+Press&p_theme=gannett&p_product=FP&p_action=search&p_field_base-0=&p_text_base-0=Brian+Dickerson+sex+offenders&p_perpage=10&p_maxdocs=200&p_queryname=700&s_search_type=keyword&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=) is the columnist who's been on this for years; the link is to the "teasers" which give some info on what he's been looking at, but if you try to click through for the rest you'll be asked to pay.