NationStates Jolt Archive

Wielding a bat, Tammy Lee Gibson, 40, Baldwin's neighbor, found the man and beat him so badly that he needed to go to the hospital before officers arrested him again for failing to register as a Level 3 sex offender at a new address.

He sat Friday in the Pierce County Jail on $20,000 bond -- the same jail where Gibson was being held on $15,000 bond...

Baldwin was booked on Tuesday for failing to register as a sex offender after deputies interviewed neighbors in the area who said that he had been living in the area for several months. It was not until recently that he had completed the paperwork required to register at his new home...

Baldwin's status as a Level 3 sex offender required law enforcement to circulate a flier featuring his name, image and conviction information throughout his new neighborhood. While he said he agrees with the notification process and took responsibility for his own crimes, he also suggested that law enforcement stop using fliers in place of Internet postings and going door-to-door to prevent attacks like Gibson's...

The Gibson incident was the second time someone attacked him because they knew he was a sex offender, he said.

Det. Ed Troyer, a spokesman for the Pierce County Sheriff's Office, told ABC News that the office has received calls from people supportive of Gibson and offering to help pay her bond.

Troyer added that Gibson is "not a soccer mom in a minivan who lost her temper."

"She's been in jail before on assault and drug charges," Troyer said.

Troyer said he did not condone the beating Gibson gave Baldwin.

"If everybody went out and beat up a sex offender, we're going to have to stop doing notifications," he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=5212781&page=1

The way I see it theres a few things wrong here. First of all, the woman who just beat the guy up is being held on a lower bond, than a guy who simply didn't update his address. Just seems like the actual violent crime would be a little worse, although I can't make any determination on the flight risk of either, although perhaps they figure she has a kid and therefore won't make a run for it, idk.

More importantly to the issue at hand, is this woman's reaction to learning about this guy, and that he has been attacked in the past. This leads me to believe that having to notify the community that the sex offender has moved into places a serious (and possibly lethal) burden upon the the sex offender. This guy got out of prison in 2002, so he gets attacked every 3 years for the rest of his life? It just doesn't sound right to me, what do the multitudes of NSG think?

Crap.:headbang: I agree with pretty much every word you just said.

Now see, if they had just EXECUTED him, we wouldn't be having these problems. No notification, no change of address, no women with bats beating this guy up.

'cuz he'd be dead.

Oh well.

GP

+I agree with you, while people should have the right to know the information should only be made available, not distributed freely to the public. If people wish to know they can look into it. Its putting the sex offender in unecesary danger to continue the current practice.

It is odd for someone to say they almost feel sorry for a sex offender. Were there any charges against the woman for this incident?

It seems that she will be brought to court for assault and harrassment, of course a judge/jury will get to look into the actual conviction.

It is odd for someone to say they almost feel sorry for a sex offender. Were there any charges against the woman for this incident?

It is odd for someone to say they almost feel sorry for a sex offender. Were there any charges against the woman for this incident?

If she's being held on bail I'd assume she's likely to be charged with assault or perhaps battery. Perhaps even assault with a deadly weapon.

now See, If They Had Just Executed Him, We Wouldn't Be Having These Problems. No Notification, No Change Of Address, No Women With Bats Beating This Guy Up.

'cuz He'd Be Dead.

Oh Well.

Gp

Qft

Poor sex offender :(


Incidentally, what does one have to do to be a level 3 sex offender?

I'm not particularly troubled by the differences in their bail - all sorts of factors beyond how bad the crime in question was go into determining those amounts, and different judges/prosecutors might ask for different amounts in the first place.

I am, however, absolutely disgusted by this woman's behavior and by the people who are apparently supporting her. I'm not sure whether I'm more nauseated by her belief that beating someone with a baseball bat is an appropriate response to...well, anything, really, or by her choice to start off by falsely accusing him of molesting her daughter. I very much understand that a parent might be nervous and unhappy about someone with a history of child molestation living in their area, but attempting to murder someone and/or send them to jail for a crime they never committed is far, far, FAR beyond an appropriate response.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=5212781&page=1

The way I see it theres a few things wrong here. First of all, the woman who just beat the guy up is being held on a lower bond, than a guy who simply didn't update his address. Just seems like the actual violent crime would be a little worse, although I can't make any determination on the flight risk of either, although perhaps they figure she has a kid and therefore won't make a run for it, idk.

More importantly to the issue at hand, is this woman's reaction to learning about this guy, and that he has been attacked in the past. This leads me to believe that having to notify the community that the sex offender has moved into places a serious (and possibly lethal) burden upon the the sex offender. This guy got out of prison in 2002, so he gets attacked every 3 years for the rest of his life? It just doesn't sound right to me, what do the multitudes of NSG think?

While I dislike sex offenders of that type (and am not sad he's going back to jail), the woman is clearly insane. She shows no remorse for her actions, and should have been brought up on attempted murder, as she admitted in the article that she would have killed him if she could.

Poor sex offender :(


Incidentally, what does one have to do to be a level 3 sex offender?

If you read the article, it tells what he was convicted of. Not nice stuff, though.

Poor sex offender :(


Incidentally, what does one have to do to be a level 3 sex offender?

What is the definition of a Level III sex offender?

These offenders pose a potential high risk to the community and are a threat to re-offend if provided the opportunity. Most have prior sex crime convictions as well as other criminal convictions. Their lifestyles and choices place them in this classification. Some have predatory characteristics and may seek out victims. They may have refused or failed to complete approved treatment programs.

http://ml.waspc.org/FAQ.aspx

It also defines level 2 and 1.

While I dislike sex offenders of that type (and am not sad he's going back to jail), the woman is clearly insane. She shows no remorse for her actions, and should have been brought up on attempted murder, as she admitted in the article that she would have killed him if she could.

hmm, I guess it would seem hes going back to jail, I'm not entirely certain what kind of penalties they have for updating their address late.

Now see, if they had just EXECUTED him, we wouldn't be having these problems. No notification, no change of address, no women with bats beating this guy up.

'cuz he'd be dead.

Oh well.

GP
Hey, and if you execute people for parking offences then there'll never be any problems with people getting lots of tickets.
If you read the article, it tells what he was convicted of. Not nice stuff, though.

Bah, reading the article if for noobs. :p

The guy's a repeated sex offender. He got what he deserves.

Hey, and if you execute people for parking offences then there'll never be any problems with people getting lots of tickets.

Parking Offences are victimless crimes.

Did anyone else notice the guy was 7' 3" and got beat up by a 40 year old white woman?

Parking Offences are victimless crimes.
And I suppose if people were going to be executed for parking in an ambulance zone, they'd be a lot more inclined to try and kill the traffic cop who gave them the ticket. Nothing to lose, after all. They can't kill you twice.

Hey, doesn't that mean that if you start executing people for sex crimes they'll be more inclined to kill their victims? Oh dear.

And I suppose if people were going to be executed for parking in an ambulance zone, they'd be a lot more inclined to try and kill the traffic cop who gave them the ticket. Nothing to lose, after all. They can't kill you twice.

Hey, doesn't that mean that if you start executing people for sex crimes they'll be more inclined to kill their victims? Oh dear.

Then we'll kill them slowly... Can't kill them twice, might as well make it count for two crimes.

Did anyone else notice the guy was 7' 3" and got beat up by a 40 year old white woman?

She had a baseball bat. That's a pretty decent equalizer, especially if she got the first swing in before he realized her intentions with it.

Parking Offences are victimless crimes.

Especially here in Toronto.

If you appeal a parking ticket here, it gets lost in the woodwork and you get off scot-free. Only a few ever get heard.

Then we'll kill them slowly... Can't kill them twice, might as well make it count for two crimes.

Yeah, fuck that bollocks about not inflicting cruel and unusual punishment.
The Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime.

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

* The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
* "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
* "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
* "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I'm not condoning what the woman did. It was bad, she did something wrong. She should get punished appropriately.

That said, if you're a level 3 sex offender. Maybe you should be a little smart about things. Registering for instance. Yes, that may be a bit of an unfair system, but if your neighbors find out your past at the beginning, that might be marginally better than later on. Just a thought.

Oh, and maybe you should've thought twice before talking to people's kids, dumbass. Yes, you claim to have "reformed". Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, your neighbors aren't going to see it that way, are they? (especially not if you're L3, a "high-risk repeat offender").

If he's living under a stigma that he shouldn't have to be, then that's bad and I really am sorry to hear that. But for the love of God, don't make yourself such a target.

Yeah, fuck that bollocks about not inflicting cruel and unusual punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And what they do to their victims is far worse. They deserve it.

Not if you park in a handicap zone.

They can walk. :D

Parking Offences are victimless crimes.

Not if you park in a handicap zone.

And what they do to their victims is far worse. They deserve it.

Indeed. Lets just pretend that possibility that they were falsely convicted doesn't exist. After all, then we might have to reconsider torturing them to death. Couldn't have that, we'd have all this unsatisfied bloodlust.

Indeed. Lets just pretend that possibility that they were falsely convicted doesn't exist. After all, then we might have to reconsider torturing them to death. Couldn't have that, we'd have all this unsatisfied bloodlust.

Give them 3 appeal hearing in a year, If they fail two out of three, kill 'em.

Give them 3 appeal hearing in a year, If they fail two out of three, kill 'em.

Ah, wonderful. That totally eliminates any possibility of wrongful conviction.

In this case, the woman is obviously a nut. But the offender had failed to register, so I'm happy that he got busted as well.

Ah, wonderful. That totally eliminates any possibility of wrongful conviction.
Indeed.

It eliminates the wrong-doer.

Indeed.

It eliminates the wrong-doer.

It eliminates someone, not necessarily the wrong doer.


I suppose I should point out that killing the accused doesn't in any way affect the possibility of the accused being falsely convicted, just as a matter of good procedure, but I like to think that we all know that.

I want to buy that woman a drink! :D

I want to buy that woman a drink! :D

"libertarian" my fucking ass.

It eliminates someone, not necessarily the wrong doer.


I suppose I should point out that killing the accused doesn't in any way affect the possibility of the accused being falsely convicted, just as a matter of good procedure, but I like to think that we all know that.
No, I was being ironic and attempting to back up your comment by such.

I meant that it elimates the wrong doer by definition - the convicted dies, even if they're actually wrongfully comitted.

If ya get me.

Obviously I failed to be witty because I needed to explain my comment :p

This woman clearly did the right thing, that social pollutant deserves to be beaten to death obviously, shame she didn't go that far.

No, I was being ironic and attempting to back up your comment by such.

I meant that it elimates the wrong doer by definition - the convicted dies, even if they're actually wrongfully comitted.

If ya get me.

Obviously I failed to be witty because I needed to explain my comment :p

Oops. Ah well, such things happen.

"libertarian" my fucking ass.

Ok, do we have anything constructive to add beside a personal attack? No, ok, just making sure.

blocked.

While I understand the desire to inform the public about a dangerous offender, and I really doubt that a lot of sex offenders can be cured, there is no excuse for vigillanty behavior. there's a justice system for a reason, and if this man did nothing to the woman in question, she is a dangerous dirtbag who's actions undermine the justice system, and she should be put away for a long time. i feel sorry for her kid though, since they'll lose their mom thanks to her stupidity.:mad:

The problem is that if you let dangerous criminals out, the public needs to be on their guard, but stuff like the sex offender registry is, as this guy's history demonstrates, an invitation for thugs to take the law into their own hands. So here's what I think: if the criminal is no longer a threat, then he's served his time and its done with. If he still poses a threat, then in the interests of public safety he should be locked away for good. Certainly far to many sex offenders get parol. I think the problem here is that the "justice" system cares more about punishment than public safety. If some one is dangerous enough to justify making them a target of violence for the rest of their lives, then why are they on the street at all(maybe cause the prisons are full of pot smokers and promiscuous teenagers?) If their safe to let out, and their time is served, then why are their rights being violated like this? Obviously there's a lot of complexity to just where you draw the line regarding how much of a threat some one is, but this system is broken.

Edit: the mom might actually get off, if the jury is selected from a highly conservative area where the idea that many sex offenders should be executed would probably be quite mainstream.

This woman clearly did the right thing, that social pollutant deserves to be beaten to death obviously, shame she didn't go that far.

I thought you would think that he would have to be brought before a people's tribunal, or a meeting of Party officials in order to decide his fate. Why should a state matter be the business of an individual acting on her own initiative?

This woman clearly did the right thing, that social pollutant deserves to be beaten to death obviously, shame she didn't go that far.

OMG! He's back!

Everyone wondered where you went, mainly due to the lack of propoganda and stalin worship.

Ok, do we have anything constructive to add beside a personal attack? No, ok, just making sure.

blocked.

If you take it personally when someone points out that your views are completely and totally in opposition to your professed political ideology, well....maybe you should re-evaluate one or the other.

In this case, the woman is obviously a nut. But the offender had failed to register, so I'm happy that he got busted as well.

Busted yes but not busted up.

So here's what I think: if the criminal is no longer a threat, then he's served his time and its done with. If he still poses a threat, then in the interests of public safety he should be locked away for good..
I must say, that does seem a bit odd. If a criminal no longer poses a threat, then they've served their time?

How does one then work out that a criminal no longer is a threat to whatever groups in the community? I'd imagine that proper recidivists would be able to fake the fact they were "cured", and therefore be more than happy to be a threat once again to the rest of us.

I must say, that does seem a bit odd. If a criminal no longer poses a threat, then they've served their time?

How does one then work out that a criminal no longer is a threat to whatever groups in the community? I'd imagine that proper recidivists would be able to fake the fact they were "cured", and therefore be more than happy to be a threat once again to the rest of us.

I think the problem is that sending someone to jail is seen as a punishment, rather than a way of insulating them from society, thus protecting it.

*mutters about irrational women*

the police are partly responsible for this by handing out those flyer's and as such failed in their duty to "serve and protect" this of course means compensation should be made so maybe they should let the guy off for failing to register on time :)

Oh, and maybe you should've thought twice before talking to people's kids, dumbass.

your seriously going to believe anything this woman is now saying?

I want to buy that woman a drink! :D

She will only end up hurting you :(

I meant, if a criminal has served their time, and they're no longer a threat, then we should consider their time served, and let them move on with their life. Please don't make an issue out of this. It just came out badly.

I meant, if a criminal has served their time, and they're no longer a threat, then we should consider their time served, and let them move on with their life. Please don't make an issue out of this. It just came out badly.

The law says he has to register forever, and every place he moves to has to be notified.

That's because the recidivism rate for pedophilia is higher than the odds you'll eat breakfast tomorrow.

The law says he has to register forever, and every place he moves to has to be notified.

That's because the recidivism rate for pedophilia is higher than the odds you'll eat breakfast tomorrow.
Any stats and/or quotations for that?

That's because the recidivism rate for pedophilia is higher than the odds you'll eat breakfast tomorrow.

what is he Ethiopian or something? (oh dear I am just about holding some jokes in right now)

The law says he has to register forever, and every place he moves to has to be notified.

That's because the recidivism rate for pedophilia is higher than the odds you'll eat breakfast tomorrow.

For pedophilia[sic] to have a recidivism rate it would have to be a crime. It is not. You are mistaking sexual attraction to pre-/peri-pubescent children with sexual assault against them. [/nitpick]

That's because the recidivism rate for pedophilia

"pedophilia" can't have a recidivism rate.

Ah, Hotwife, our local conservative troll. In case you haven't read the rest of my posts, I fully agree that many sex offenders are a continuing threat(I say many not all because "sex offender" covers everything from exposing yourself in public up to child rape with a wepon, and so is a very broad term). In my opinion, I think dangerous offenders should stay put away for life, and then their'd be no need for the vigilanty target, excuse me, sex offender registry. However, I think that if someone is safe enough to be let out on the street, then they should be allowed to move on with their lives, without being made a target for everyone who thinks they have a right to administer "justice". I was commenting on the apparent condradictory nature of the system, not arguing that sex offenders should simply walk. quite the contrary, in fact.

By the way, "its the law" is not a good justification for a posision. Turning in escaped slaves was once "the law". Hanging for petty theft was once "the law". In Afghanistan, it was "the law" to kill women who "exposed" themselves. You presented a non-argument, a completely amoral one that dodges any need for thought or reason. Why am I not surprised?

This woman clearly did the right thing, that social pollutant deserves to be beaten to death obviously, shame she didn't go that far.

Aren't you one of the people that rails against vigilantism? And what she did is against the law, despite your personal feelings.

Don't bother arguing with Andaras. He has developed an immunity to rational thought.;)

The law says he has to register forever, and every place he moves to has to be notified.

That's because the recidivism rate for pedophilia is higher than the odds you'll eat breakfast tomorrow.

Similarly, not all offenders with a high score on the risk test, or even most of them, will commit another crime. They are just most likely to commit another crime than an offender with a low score is.

somewhere less than 50% anyway, and thats for the high-risk level 3's like this guy. It'd be nice to get an actual number though.

EDIT: here we go http://ml.waspc.org/Downloads/MythsandFacts.pdf

13% reconviction rate of child molesters (37% chance of another crime over 5 years), meanwhile the general prison population has a 41% chance of serving time within 3 years of getting out.

50 percent is still way to high. These people should go away for life. unfortunately, there's prison overcrowding to consider. This is part of why jail should be only for those who pose a real danger to public safety. In my opinion, most crimes should be met with community service, fines, etc. Only really sever offenses should warrant jail time, but if you do commit such a crime, you should probably be put away for good. Pity that the justice system is focussed on punishment, not public safety.

Again, the American myth that only brutal rapists and hardcore child molesters are placed on Sex Offender Registries rears its ugly head. And with that stereotype comes an often fatal stigma attached to anyone on that list for reasons as trivial as indecent exposure.

Again, the American myth that only brutal rapists and hardcore child molesters are placed on Sex Offender Registries rears its ugly head. And with that stereotype comes an often fatal stigma attached to anyone on that list for reasons as trivial as indecent exposure.

Have you read the article, to see why he was on the sex offender list?

Yeh, this guy was a hard core offender. It's my understanding however that a lot of minor offenders do get put on the registry, and people tend to just assume that "registered sex offender" = "evil violent rapist."

Have you read the article, to see why he was on the sex offender list?

I was actually referrring to the knee-jerk posts that were suggesting the assault would have never happened if all registered sex offenders were executed.

I was actually referrring to the knee-jerk posts that were suggesting the assault would have never happened if all registered sex offenders were executed.

Ah, I see.

See, that's viewing justice through the lense of public safety. Well put, Gauthier.

Ah, I see.

And they also miss the point that making sex offenses punishable by death is only going to add more grief to the family of victims, given than any child molester or rapist aware of the consequences will be more inclined to murder the victims in an attempt to cover up the crime or just because "they're going to fry anyways."

Yeh, this guy was a hard core offender. It's my understanding however that a lot of minor offenders do get put on the registry, and people tend to just assume that "registered sex offender" = "evil violent rapist."

To assume the role of devil's advocate for a moment - would you really call him a "hard core offender"?

I am, however, absolutely disgusted by this woman's behavior and by the people who are apparently supporting her. I'm not sure whether I'm more nauseated by her belief that beating someone with a baseball bat is an appropriate response to...well, anything, really, or by her choice to start off by falsely accusing him of molesting her daughter. I very much understand that a parent might be nervous and unhappy about someone with a history of child molestation living in their area, but attempting to murder someone and/or send them to jail for a crime they never committed is far, far, FAR beyond an appropriate response.

I agree with this.

To assume the role of devil's advocate for a moment - would you really call him a "hard core offender"?

A repeat offender yes, but not hardcore if the definition implies sexual intercourse.

Didn't read that part. She claimed the man molested her daughter? What was she going to do, tell her daughter to go to court and lie that she was raped? Did she have any idea how much that could screw up her daughter? her child should be taken into protective custody immediatley, and she should never be allowed to raise a child again. If this has been done, good for law enforcement. If not, then shame on them. This woman is sick, and her actions do not indicate that she gave a damn about her daughter(though if it did turn out he abused her daughter, I would have a lot more sympathy for her, which is no doubt why she said it. But as the matter stands, she can rot).

Aren't you one of the people that rails against vigilantism? And what she did is against the law, despite your personal feelings.
Sexual offenders are aberrations and social retardants best kept away from society, just because this rotten liberal 'justice' system can't handle scum like pedo's then the public should handle it for society.

Sexual offenders are aberrations and social retardants best kept away from society

So are communists...

So are communists...

"Aberrations", maybe, but "social retardants" is a little strong.

"Aberrations", maybe, but "social retardants" is a little strong.

Sometimes the backhand return of generalistic comments lacks accuracy. They're still pretty to watch though. :)

Oh, and maybe you should've thought twice before talking to people's kids, dumbass. Yes, you claim to have "reformed". Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, your neighbors aren't going to see it that way, are they? (especially not if you're L3, a "high-risk repeat offender").

To be fair, the crazy woman who assaulted him claimed he had spoken to her daughter once, almost a year ago, on the 4th of July. Even if she's telling the truth this time, for all we know, the entire exchange went something like this:

Kid: Ooh, look at the fireworks over there! Aren't they pretty?
Guy: Yes. *walks away*

I have a hard time working up a lot of righteous indignation over a lewd and lascivious conversation like that, and without any evidence at all or any sign that the mother was upset about the conversation before finding out about his criminal record, we just don't have any reason to assume it was anything much worse.

Oh, that poor man! Boo hoo.

He deserved what he got. Next time keep it in your pants.

To all the idiots high-fiving the crazy woman (the one in the OP, not me) I will suppose you all figure we should go out and kill or beat anyone who we feel threatened by, especially if they've committed an offense before. My redneck neighbor and his pitbulls make me nervous. I should take matters into my own hands and eliminate the threat. Knock off his kids too, future rednecks that they are. I'd feel safer. Fuck due process, laws and all that crap.

I don't see why we should stop at sex crimes. This whole theory that you've 'paid your debt to society' by serving your sentence is crap. We need to know who the people who commit crimes are so we can be safe. I propose that everyone who has ever been convicted of any crime be permanently inked bright purple so we know they're criminals and can kill them from a safe distance if we spot one. That should cut down on the repeat offenders a mite. *nod*

I'd also like an injection of an anti-sarcastic drug if anybody has some.

Oh, that poor man! Boo hoo.

He deserved what he got. Next time keep it in your pants.

Read the article please. He served the sentence for his crimes, and the psycho bitch attacked him anyway.

I don't see why we should stop at sex crimes. This whole theory that you've 'paid your debt to society' by serving your sentence is crap. We need to know who the people who commit crimes are so we can be safe. I propose that everyone who has ever been convicted of any crime be permanently inked bright purple so we know they're criminals and can kill them from a safe distance if we spot one. That should cut down on the repeat offenders a mite. *nod*

I'd also like an injection of an anti-sarcastic drug if anybody has some.

Would take something away from the Blue Man Group's act though.

Would take something away from the Blue Man Group's act though.

They might get accidentally shot by a colorblind mom. Think of that as a perk. :)

Well, if indeed he paid his whatnot to society for kiddy fiddling, then he shouldn't be on any kind of list. So I do understand that point of view.

On the other hand he is a kiddy fiddler, so I am going to withhold my tears about his plight.

Really, there are worse things in the world to worry about.

I'd also like an injection of an anti-sarcastic drug if anybody has some.

Yale, I believe has one. But it's pretty difficult to get it.

I don't see why we should stop at sex crimes. This whole theory that you've 'paid your debt to society' by serving your sentence is crap. We need to know who the people who commit crimes are so we can be safe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5b/JudgeDeathIrving.jpg/250px-JudgeDeathIrving.jpg

"Crime is committed by the Living. Therefore, Life itself is a crime."

I propose that everyone who has ever been convicted of any crime be permanently inked bright purple so we know they're criminals and can kill them from a safe distance if we spot one. That should cut down on the repeat offenders a mite. *nod*

I'd also like an injection of an anti-sarcastic drug if anybody has some.

As a plus side, the following would be declared criminals:

- Barney
- The California Raisins
- Grape Ape
- And Many Others

Did anyone else notice the guy was 7' 3" and got beat up by a 40 year old white woman?

He's a sex offender right? As in molesting kids and such?

Probably not a real tough guy.

Theoroshia, read the damn artical. At least skim it. Then try to make a coherrent responce that isn't just rar rar beat the pedophile.

yes, the man in question is a disgusting scum bag. But guess what, the law still aplys. You cannot have a functioning society without some rule of law, and what that woman did to him is unacceptable. If your response was directed towards a specific post showing sympathy for the man, I would understand, even though I would find your attitude simple-minded and repugnant. But as it is, you appear to simply be arguing, in a crude and clumsy one-liner, that this crazed woman should have free license to take the law into her own hands.

In any case, I don't think we have a right to judge what this man deserves. What we do have a right and responsibility to do is to keep him from hurting others. He should never have been let out in the first place. But your apparent gung-ho, violent attitude that we have a right to inflict pain on others because they committed a dispicable act disgusts me. What does vengence accomplish, other than to make you feel like a tough guy, and pander to the desire for revenge? People like you are probably the biggest reason the so-called justice system fails.:mad::headbang:

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/sputnik/53/death_he.jpg

"Crime is committed by the Living. Therefore, Life itself is a crime."



As a plus side, the following would be declared criminals:

- Barney
- The California Raisins
- Grape Ape
- And Many Others

Oooh. Was that a Judge Death thing? He was always my favorite judge.

Now the picture is coming thru, I can see it was.

Hmm, slight overreaction by the woman especially when you consider that he was released 6 years ago, assuming of course that he hasn't re-offended in the intervening time. Also it may be worth considering that the crime took place in 1998 so he would have been about 14 at the time (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattle911/archives/141504.asp?source=mypi states the date of offending). It's still sick and wrong but you can't condemn someone for life based on those actions at that age.

What worries me is that there's a very wide range of what is classed as "sex offense". This includes age laws violation (like a 18-old shagging a 14-old), ownership of CP, "sexual harassment", and others.

Virtually in all cases this means registration for life, and so shame for life. I understand that for rape, not for the plethora of other sex crimes.

Basically, some guy that slapped a girl on the butt, who then turned out jumpy, is put into the same boat as rapists.

---

They could just cut off the penises and be done with it.

Unless he actually harmed her child, she has no excuse.

Notice that I didn't say she had no right, because she doesn't have a right to assault anyone. She doesn't have the excuse that she lost it when she saw he'd hurt her kid.

She should have to face the full consequences for the crime she committed.

"libertarian" my fucking ass.

*studies Neo's ass*
If you say it is, I suppose it must be. *wink*

What worries me is that there's a very wide range of what is classed as "sex offense". This includes age laws violation (like a 18-old shagging a 14-old), ownership of CP, "sexual harassment", and others.

Virtually in all cases this means registration for life, and so shame for life. I understand that for rape, not for the plethora of other sex crimes.

Basically, some guy that slapped a girl on the butt, who then turned out jumpy, is put into the same boat as rapists.

---

They could just cut off the penises and be done with it.


Sex crime laws are crazy.

friend of mine in high school his senior(him 18) did what seniors tend to do sleep with the sophomores and freshmen. being the player that he was he slept with 3 or 4 of them. for whatever reason they told their parents around the same time. he was classified as a level 3 sex offender because they considered the way he picked up the girls predatory, and they considered him to be a repeat offender.

Sex crime laws are crazy.

friend of mine in high school his senior(him 18) did what seniors tend to do sleep with the sophomores and freshmen. being the player that he was he slept with 3 or 4 of them. for whatever reason they told their parents around the same time. he was classified as a level 3 sex offender because they considered the way he picked up the girls predatory, and they considered him to be a repeat offender.

What he was, at best, was a loser.
Why DID he have to go after underage kids? Not enough senior girls for him?

Of course, he is a loser. It takes no effort to pickup a younger girl. And of course it is a right thing to crack down on this kind of behavior.


But then, does it warrant, basically, condemning him to be a lowlife till the death?
The disparity between the offense and the punishment is outright insane. Law enforcement should work through actually enforcing the laws, rather than through extreme punishments for those few that they bother to catch.

What he was, at best, was a loser.
Why DID he have to go after underage kids? Not enough senior girls for him?

if your 18 sleep with a 15 year old shouldn't be a life long stigma (unless you knock her up) or even a crime. 14 I admit is pushing it. But again not worth a life long sex offender status, especially level 3.

if your 18 sleep with a 15 year old shouldn't be a life long stigma (unless you knock her up) or even a crime. 14 I admit is pushing it. But again not worth a life long sex offender status, especially level 3.

It should be a crime.

Worthy of life long stigma? Depends, but as long as it isn't rape or gross abuse - maybe not.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=5212781&page=1

The way I see it theres a few things wrong here. First of all, the woman who just beat the guy up is being held on a lower bond, than a guy who simply didn't update his address. Just seems like the actual violent crime would be a little worse, although I can't make any determination on the flight risk of either, although perhaps they figure she has a kid and therefore won't make a run for it, idk.

More importantly to the issue at hand, is this woman's reaction to learning about this guy, and that he has been attacked in the past. This leads me to believe that having to notify the community that the sex offender has moved into places a serious (and possibly lethal) burden upon the the sex offender. This guy got out of prison in 2002, so he gets attacked every 3 years for the rest of his life? It just doesn't sound right to me, what do the multitudes of NSG think?

The practice of distributing the details of know sex offenders to a neighbourhood can only prefigure violence and ostracism, whilst pandering to the moralistic tendencies of the average suburban housewife. The local police should certainly be notified, but the community at large? No.

It should be a crime.

Worthy of life long stigma? Depends, but as long as it isn't rape or gross abuse - maybe not.

Why? Purely because the law stipulates that, upon the day you turn 16, you are prepared for a sexual relationship that you weren't a day before? The age, fundamentally, is far too high; most children have sex before then anyway, and those countries that have a lower age, and more informed attitude to sex, seem to fare rather better with it than either the USA or the UK. Secondly, the attitude

This woman clearly did the right thing, that social pollutant deserves to be beaten to death obviously, shame she didn't go that far.

What, and miss out on the opportunity to give him a transparently obvious show trial? Or maybe we could just ice-pick him, like Trotsky.

She shouldn't have whupped him like she did, but I'm not exactly going to squeeze out any tears of sympathy for the poor maligned child-molester.

It should be a crime.

Worthy of life long stigma? Depends, but as long as it isn't rape or gross abuse - maybe not.

I like the states that have the 3 or 4 year age difference clause. aka if she is with in those age differences it is okay.

it is just silly. if they are both in high school they are likely to get it on.

Incidentally, what does one have to do to be a level 3 sex offender?

You have to take two levels in Pervert, have 5 ranks in Knowledge (any among kiddie porn, bestialism, coprophilia, rape porn, etc), and get the prestige class at level 1 and 2.

Edit: Forgot to add: Alignment: Any Evil.

The age, fundamentally, is far too high; most children have sex before then
If there wasn't a problem of some, an increasing number, doing that, there wouldn't be any point in laws to help this problem.

Why?
To better protect children from abuse.

Purely because the law stipulates that, upon the day you turn 16, you are prepared for a sexual relationship that you weren't a day before? The age, fundamentally, is far too high; most children have sex before then anyway, and those countries that have a lower age, and more informed attitude to sex, seem to fare rather better with it than either the USA or the UK.
Care to back up those two claims?

I like the states that have the 3 or 4 year age difference clause. aka if she is with in those age differences it is okay.
I like the clause which states that if both parties are equal in age and development neither should be punished. I wouldn't like an absolute rule that if the one party is 18 it's always OK to have sex with a 14-year old. (Or 16-12 for that matter)

it is just silly. if they are both in high school they are likely to get it on.
Really?

You have to take two levels in Pervert, have 5 ranks in Knowledge (any among kiddie porn, bestialism, coprophilia, rape porn, etc), and get the prestige class at level 1 and 2.

Win.

Win.

Oh, I forgot: Alignment: Any Evil. ;)

I myself am a Pervert 5, but I'm Chaotic Neutral, so I'd never take that prestige class. Plus I have no ranks in any of the Knowledge skills it requires... ;)

If there wasn't a problem of some, an increasing number, doing that, there wouldn't be any point in laws to help this problem.

eh? So you believe its the fault of those naughty, promiscuous teenagers having sex before an arbitrary age limit do you?

Tell me, emperically, what knowledge or maturity arrives on your sixteenth birthday to render one ready for a sexual relationship.

To better protect children from abuse.


Care to back up those two claims?


And, so as to "protect children from abuse", would you condone the obvious excesses and illogicalities in the law? Given that laws designed to pritect can lead to mob violence and vigilanteism, do you genuinely believe the law actually works?

Moreover, I've yet to see anybody mount a convuctive defence of 16 as the age limit, let alone the inflexibility of law around the age limit. Do so.

Concerning the two statements, there have been a succession of surveys in the UK suggesting the majority have sex before 16. Perhaps not in the US; certainly not in the more provincial areas it seems to be blessed with, but in Europe, the age, to reflect reality, would be better placed at 14 or 15.

whilst pandering to the moralistic tendencies of the average suburban housewife. The local police should certainly be notified, but the community at large? No.

but think about what this will do to property prices :eek:

Tell me, emperically, what knowledge or maturity arrives on your sixteenth birthday to render one ready for a sexual relationship.

that being 16 sucks as much (if not harder) as any age before that? ;)

eh? So you believe its the fault of those naughty, promiscuous teenagers having sex before an arbitrary age limit do you?
What do you mean by fault? If you mean them doing it on their own will, well, they do.


Tell me, emperically, what knowledge or maturity arrives on your sixteenth birthday to render one ready for a sexual relationship.
I think it arrives somewhere between 17 and 20. Probably, for most, around 18. 90% of all 16-year-olds I've seen are kids. But then, if they're allowed to own and use weapons, it's time to allow them to fuck too. I'm still in favor of 18-years plus exam limit for unrestricted rights and 16 years plus test for restricted rights, in the area of handling dangerous equipment (obviously no exam needed for handling the cock).

Birthday doesn't mean anything - it's just a way to draw the line, since it has to be drawn somewhere.

And, so as to "protect children from abuse", would you condone the obvious excesses and illogicalities in the law? Given that laws designed to pritect can lead to mob violence and vigilanteism, do you genuinely believe the law actually works?
What law are you talking about now?
The age of consent? I'm in favour of having that at 16.
The sex offender registry? I'm against that on principle, with a possible exception for the more serious crimes.

Moreover, I've yet to see anybody mount a convuctive defence of 16 as the age limit, let alone the inflexibility of law around the age limit. Do so.
Why? See my previous post.

Also, the age limit is a rather arbitrary number set because it seems like the right time for a child to be mature enough to be able to give informed consent. Just like the passage between child and adult doesn't happen overnight when you turn 18, it doesn't actually change anything when you turn 16. Except that it is in the interest of society to protect children, and society does so in these cases by enforcing a lower limit. Again, it's to combat abuse.

It's not written in stone, however, as is evident by the fact that it's not a universally accepted limit. But I think it's the right one.

Concerning the two statements, there have been a succession of surveys in the UK suggesting the majority have sex before 16. Perhaps not in the US; certainly not in the more provincial areas it seems to be blessed with, but in Europe, the age, to reflect reality, would be better placed at 14 or 15.
And you are unable to produce any of these, I take it?

I think it arrives somewhere between 17 and 20.

thats insane, you can only keep the umbilical cord attached for so long before it just gets weird

in other words these kids will do it anyway and the idea that you can shelter someone from the world till they are ready is absurd

I'm still in favor of 18-years plus exam limit for unrestricted rights and 16 years plus test for restricted rights, in the area of handling dangerous equipment (obviously no exam needed for handling the cock).

and the questions on these papers would be :confused:

thats insane, you can only keep the umbilical cord attached for so long before it just gets weird
That's why I'm OK with the current system. But these kids don't have enough maturity even on 16th birthday. It's just that at least they're on the way to it.

in other words these kids will do it anyway Should be helped through education.

and the idea that you can shelter someone from the world till they are ready is absurd The world isn't limited to the tip of the cock.



and the questions on these papers would be I said, no exam needed for handling the cock. That was in relation to cars and guns.

I think it arrives somewhere between 17 and 20. Probably, for most, around 18. 90% of all 16-year-olds I've seen are kids. But then, if they're allowed to own and use weapons, it's time to allow them to fuck too. I'm still in favor of 18-years plus exam limit for unrestricted rights and 16 years plus test for restricted rights, in the area of handling dangerous equipment (obviously no exam needed for handling the cock).

Birthday doesn't mean anything - it's just a way to draw the line, since it has to be drawn somewhere.

Far, far too late, and frankly authoratarian to the point of dystopian.

This woman clearly did the right thing, that social pollutant deserves to be beaten to death obviously, shame she didn't go that far.

Does no one understand that if you give rapists the death penalty, it will encourage them to kill their victims?

Congratulations on upping the ante. http://s97.photobucket.com/albums/l229/Kenny5555/th_untitled.jpg

your seriously going to believe anything this woman is now saying?

Is that statement in contention?

To be fair, the crazy woman who assaulted him claimed he had spoken to her daughter once, almost a year ago, on the 4th of July. Even if she's telling the truth this time, for all we know, the entire exchange went something like this:

Kid: Ooh, look at the fireworks over there! Aren't they pretty?
Guy: Yes. *walks away*

I have a hard time working up a lot of righteous indignation over a lewd and lascivious conversation like that, and without any evidence at all or any sign that the mother was upset about the conversation before finding out about his criminal record, we just don't have any reason to assume it was anything much worse.

Fair enough. I hadn't considered that maybe the kid started it and he left at the first opportunity. Mind you, I don't think that anything lewd occurred, I simply assumed that he had started it and I deemed that stupid on his part.

You have to take two levels in Pervert, have 5 ranks in Knowledge (any among kiddie porn, bestialism, coprophilia, rape porn, etc), and get the prestige class at level 1 and 2.

Edit: Forgot to add: Alignment: Any Evil.

Book of Vile Darkness?

I rolled up a char with that class once. The bonus spells and feats are pretty fun, but you take a major penalty to Charisma/Diplomacy/and Bluff (but a plus to Intimidate) and I was pretty useless in most fights. (Save for a few very memorable ones. Heh heh.)

and the questions on these papers would be :confused:

"Osiris had a large penis. (illustration of a triangle with the measures of the short sides filled in and an x by the hypotenuse) Find the length. Units are in meters."

"Find the exact value of Sin Lunatic Goofballs"

"Graph the inverse of Andaras Prime"

"How many piano keys are in North America"

etc.

Book of Vile Darkness?

I rolled up a char with that class once. The bonus spells and feats are pretty fun, but you take a major penalty to Charisma/Diplomacy/and Bluff (but a plus to Intimidate) and I was pretty useless in most fights. (Save for a few very memorable ones. Heh heh.)

Wait, there IS a "pervert" class??? O_O

if your 18 sleep with a 15 year old shouldn't be a life long stigma (unless you knock her up) or even a crime. 14 I admit is pushing it. But again not worth a life long sex offender status, especially level 3.

At 18, you are considered an adult. You may sign contracts. You may go join the armed services. You may incur credit card debt for the rest of your life.

You may not sleep with children three years younger than you.

eh? So you believe its the fault of those naughty, promiscuous teenagers having sex before an arbitrary age limit do you?

Tell me, emperically, what knowledge or maturity arrives on your sixteenth birthday to render one ready for a sexual relationship.

No, it's more a problem with legal adults getting it on with minors.

No, it's more a problem with legal adults getting it on with minors.

Agreed, however, I dispute the broad use of "adult". There is, to my mind, a difference between a mature 14 year old sleeping with an 18 year old, consensually, and a middle aged individual inveigling his way into a child's affections. Not only is 16 far too high an age, but the law requires more flexibility and qualifications than it has at present.

You may go join the armed services.

You may not sleep with children three years younger than you.

do two wrongs make a right? 18 is only the legal age for deployment overseas within the military and loser 18 year olds going out with younger girls is fairly normal depending on situation (in other words of they are those students who go to Sixth forms)

You have to take two levels in Pervert, have 5 ranks in Knowledge (any among kiddie porn, bestialism, coprophilia, rape porn, etc), and get the prestige class at level 1 and 2.

Edit: Forgot to add: Alignment: Any Evil.

A lawful evil sex offender. Intriguing concept.

do two wrongs make a right? 18 is only the legal age for deployment overseas within the military and loser 18 year olds going out with younger girls is fairly normal depending on situation (in other words of they are those students who go to Sixth forms)

And I think me going out with a 12 year old is fairly normal too. Why not, I mean? Just go to the fourth forms instead.

Wait, there IS a "pervert" class??? O_O

Not that I know of. :p

A lawful evil sex offender. Intriguing concept.

Lives by a code of his own, plans his attacks carefully, and so on, and so forth. Likely a predator out of a need for power and domination. Not hard to imagine.

A lawful evil sex offender. Intriguing concept.

Perhaps he seeks loopholes in the law, like vacationing in countries where the laws are more lax or photoshopping legal pictures to appear to depict illegal acts.

A lawful evil sex offender methodically molests what he wants within the limits of his code of libido without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about romance, taking the victim out to dinner, and chocolate but not about freedom, dignity, or personal space. He plays by the rules but without mercy or self-restraint. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to receive, but is willing to give. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, age, style, or social rank. He is loath to break laws (apart from those necessary to his profession) or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil sex offenders have particular taboos, such as not killing the victim or not letting adults come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled sex offenders.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to moral indecency with a zeal like that of a monk committed to chastity. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading molestation as an end unto itself. They may also see molesting children as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

...That left an awful taste in my mouth.

RPGs are such fun.

That's just...dear God, that's just wrong.

Lives by a code of his own, plans his attacks carefully, and so on, and so forth. Likely a predator out of a need for power and domination. Not hard to imagine.

Lawful evil killer here. Sound familiar?

Lawful evil killer here. Sound familiar?

?

50 percent is still way to high. These people should go away for life. unfortunately, there's prison overcrowding to consider. This is part of why jail should be only for those who pose a real danger to public safety. In my opinion, most crimes should be met with community service, fines, etc. Only really sever offenses should warrant jail time, but if you do commit such a crime, you should probably be put away for good. Pity that the justice system is focussed on punishment, not public safety.

Absolutely agree.
Victimless crimes (such as drug possession) really shouldn't be clogging up the system to the extent that "we can't afford to keep them in" is any kind of reason to release dangerous criminals.

Weighing the rights of the offender against the safety of the public will always be a tricky business. But that judgement (which belongs to a court, preferably a judge) is only made less sound by considerations of the cost of imprisonment.

When we consider the value to society of an imprisoned criminal (it's negative) we are led to the idea that they should be released if they make a less negative contribution thereafter, even if that contribution is still negative! Surely that is wrong.

===========

To be fair, the crazy woman who assaulted him claimed he had spoken to her daughter once, almost a year ago, on the 4th of July. Even if she's telling the truth this time, for all we know, the entire exchange went something like this:

Kid: Ooh, look at the fireworks over there! Aren't they pretty?
Guy: Yes. *walks away*

I have a hard time working up a lot of righteous indignation over a lewd and lascivious conversation like that, and without any evidence at all or any sign that the mother was upset about the conversation before finding out about his criminal record, we just don't have any reason to assume it was anything much worse.

I agree with that too.

If she had a problem with the way this neighbour talked to her kid, she should have gone to the police. They would know his record, and could judge her complaint by the stricter standards applied to a parolee.

I see some value in a sex offender's registry. Parents should take reasonable care at all times, but clearly being paranoid about every acquaintance of the child isn't practical or desirable. If the parent knows that a person presents MORE risk than an average acquaintance, they can watch more carefully, strike that person off the Halloween list, etc.

The ex-con who is on the register will feel unavoidable exclusion from society. In a sense, they MUST be partially excluded from society ... but not entirely. They should still have all the opportunities for employment and recreation which a person who just doesn't like children would have (such a person would not choose to live next to a school, or work as a teacher, for instance.) In their case, it's enforced, but that is because the way they "like" children cannot be trusted, even by the offender themselves if they have a clear understanding that what they did to get convicted was wrong.

And most people can probably be trusted to use the registry responsibly.

Arguably, the sort of people who take vigilante actions are a threat to all of society. Giving them a more socially acceptable target for their violent intolerance could even be seen as protecting those who have never done anything wrong, by getting the vigilante into jail sooner rather than later.

A lawful evil sex offender. Intriguing concept.

Not in the real world. To be an "offender" they must break a law.

Not in the real world. To be an "offender" they must break a law.

Oh for the love of Christ almighty, I'm sick of this mistake.

THAT'S NOT WHAT FUCKING LAWFUL MEANS AS AN ALIGNMENT!!!111

Oh wait... wrong forum.

Er... anyway.

Yeah, in DnD they messed up with the naming. Lawful translates to order and consistency. So the Mafia would be a Lawful organization despite being criminal.

Oh for the love of Christ almighty, I'm sick of this mistake.

THAT'S NOT WHAT FUCKING LAWFUL MEANS AS AN ALIGNMENT!!!111

Oh wait... wrong forum.

Er... anyway.

Yeah, in DnD they messed up with the naming. Lawful translates to order and consistency. So the Mafia would be a Lawful organization despite being criminal.

Wow! I did it! I somehow managed to turn a discussion about a pedophile's beating into a discussion about D&D alignments through a JOKE! :p

Wow! I did it! I somehow managed to turn a discussion about a pedophile's beating into a discussion about D&D alignments through a JOKE! :p

We can't stop now! Now we have to turn it into a Star Wars/Star Trek debate!

We can't stop now! Now we have to turn it into a Star Wars/Star Trek debate!

I wonder what kind of D&D class Yoda would be. He was mostly a sorcerer type, but he had some awesome fighting skills too...

I wonder what kind of D&D class Yoda would be. He was mostly a sorcerer type, but he had some awesome fighting skills too...

*Holds the thread, by now dead, in his arms*

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!