NationStates Jolt Archive

The jihad against sex offenders has now become ridiculous to the extreme and has gotten to the point where politicians feel completely comfortable in removing a group of peoples rights and do it again and again and again just because it makes good press and they are sure no-one will complain about it. It downright smacks of unchecked bullying by a group of people in power against an unpopular group that noone likes.

Missouri’s Halloween limits on registered sex offenders now haunt the courts

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1102790.html

If your going to do this, why not use the same rational and prevent registered sex offenders, who have served their time just like a burglar or murderer or shoplifter, and preventn them from leaving thier house at 8 am and 3 pm when kids walk home from school? Why not ban them from leaving their house on weekends or ban them from a movie theater or ban them from a parade or ban them from anything else that you can even remotely tie to a place where other humans might go. What other class of criminal do we do ANY of those things to? As much as noone wants to hear it. Sex offenders have the same rights you do and our system of laws should be fighting to support rights of all citizens not work extra hard on removing them on groups they dont like so much.

Why do you like to rape little kids ?

it can only do so when the culture that law serves blindly and fanatically denies nature.

(pubescent 11-16 year olds may not be culturally adults, but they are certainly NOT "little kids"!, not that i would or do ignore the realities of the culture i am surrounded by, and the at least magnification, if not very nearly complete creation, of the suffering caused by rape, by the values of that culture. suffering as such, is not the source of sexual gratification. what i must and do forgo, for the sake of reality, my imagination can and does make up for.)

and don't give me that gullibility crap. ALL humans are gullible, from birth to the grave.

Why do you like to rape little kids ?

" First they came for the Jews, but I didn't say anything, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the homosexuals, but I wasn't one... Then they came for Communists, but I wasn't one. Then they came for Catholics, but I wasn't one... Then they came for me - and there was no one to defend me."

And incidentally its that EXACT same comment that gives politicians the green light to continue to trample rights, because if you challenge it, what are you a child raper? Its an insidious accusation designed to defend poor political behavior.

On a serious note. This likely has to do with Society recently deeming attraction to teenagers unacceptable. Even though this is a normal attraction. So perhaps society targets sex offenders as a means to scape goat their own attractions they feel guilty about.

On a serious note. This likely has to do with Society recently deeming attraction to teenagers unacceptable. Even though this is a normal attraction. So perhaps society targets sex offenders as a means to scape goat their own attractions they feel guilty about.

thanx. precisely. and a completely unnatural guilt at that.
just because i find a flower attractive doesn't mean i have to pluck it, take it home, and put it in a vase.

The jihad against sex offenders has now become ridiculous to the extreme and has gotten to the point where politicians feel completely comfortable in removing a group of peoples rights and do it again and again and again just because it makes good press and they are sure no-one will complain about it. It downright smacks of unchecked bullying by a group of people in power against an unpopular group that noone likes.

Missouri’s Halloween limits on registered sex offenders now haunt the courts

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1102790.html

If your going to do this, why not use the same rational and prevent registered sex offenders, who have served their time just like a burglar or murderer or shoplifter, and preventn them from leaving thier house at 8 am and 3 pm when kids walk home from school? Why not ban them from leaving their house on weekends or ban them from a movie theater or ban them from a parade or ban them from anything else that you can even remotely tie to a place where other humans might go. What other class of criminal do we do ANY of those things to? As much as noone wants to hear it. Sex offenders have the same rights you do and our system of laws should be fighting to support rights of all citizens not work extra hard on removing them on groups they dont like so much.

I don't think we should have such things as 'registered sex offenders'. Once a person has been released form jail/prison, and are faithfully attending to their parole, they should be as free as anyone else. If we are going to put lifelong restrictions on them... well, we might as well keep them in jail, rather than a false-pretense of freedom.

It just doesn't seem right that one type of crime, and one type only (sexual offenses) warrant a record that must be shared with all neighbors forever. If I kill soemone, once I get out, I don't need to tell another living soul, and I don't see why that would be different for any other crime. If they're out of jail, parole should be the only further consideration for their past offense.

Maryland does exactly the same thing, and one thing that came up is the fact that the no candy sign is provided by the authorities, and naturally the local news channels make damn sure to show it so everybody knows it when they see it.

The result: Anybody who doesn't have a computer or who hasn't bothered to check the registry will know instantly which of their neighbors is registered, and the stage is set for harassment.

Well the solution. is to keeps those who the sex offenders might reoffend against safe. So a select group of people should be given groups of kids to raise communally, in exchange for a large subsidy. Naturally, I would get all the teenage girls.

The Halloween law is indeed utterly stupid, and a fair number of us in Missouri did say so last Halloween, so it's not entirely a matter of "no one will complain."

I am very puzzled by the whole sex offender system, to be honest. Either you think a given sex offender is safe and won't reoffend, in which case he should be left alone to live his life like any other criminal who's served his time, or you think he can't be trusted around children without reoffending, in which case he should still be in jail.

The Halloween law is indeed utterly stupid, and a fair number of us in Missouri did say so last Halloween, so it's not entirely a matter of "no one will complain."

I am very puzzled by the whole sex offender system, to be honest. Either you think a given sex offender is safe and won't reoffend, in which case he should be left alone to live his life like any other criminal who's served his time, or you think he can't be trusted around children without reoffending, in which case he should still be in jail.

see, I don't know about that. I think a system of justice is fundamentally flawed when we're saying "you might do it again, so we're keeping you in jail just in case".

That's contrary to our system of justice. Contrary to our understanding of the role of prisons. We can't just keep people in jail for fear of what they might do.

On the other hand, if there is a strong risk of danger to children, shouldn't we do SOMETHING to minimize that?

I am very puzzled by the whole sex offender system, to be honest. Either you think a given sex offender is safe and won't reoffend, in which case he should be left alone to live his life like any other criminal who's served his time, or you think he can't be trusted around children without reoffending, in which case he should still be in jail.

This.

see, I don't know about that. I think a system of justice is fundamentally flawed when we're saying "you might do it again, so we're keeping you in jail just in case".

That's contrary to our system of justice. Contrary to our understanding of the role of prisons. We can't just keep people in jail for fear of what they might do.

On the other hand, if there is a strong risk of danger to children, shouldn't we do SOMETHING to minimize that?

Probation/parole indefinitely for those who are still deemed a risk until they're cleared by the same mental health professionals ALL sex crimes convicts are required to see upon release from incarceration. (This is how they got the recidivism rate sow low.) As it stands, anybody who's cleared as a danger to others needn't be scrutinized any further. Those who are still a danger needn't be incarcerated beyond their original sentence, but regular contact with a parole officer allows them to be watched as necessary.

see, I don't know about that. I think a system of justice is fundamentally flawed when we're saying "you might do it again, so we're keeping you in jail just in case".

That's contrary to our system of justice. Contrary to our understanding of the role of prisons. We can't just keep people in jail for fear of what they might do.

On the other hand, if there is a strong risk of danger to children, shouldn't we do SOMETHING to minimize that?

It depends on what the prison is for, punishment or rehabilitation. I don't know what it's "for" in America but I'm going to assume by the model and society's comments that it's for the former. If it were for the latter than you absolutely could keep them until you felt they were rehabilitated to a point that they could be free in society.

I think jail should be to lock up the ones that we are trying to rehab so that they can re-enter society. There would be no such thing as "he did his time", they would just stay in until it was felt they could function without endangering the lives/rights of others, and once they were out, they were out.

However, we would have to get much better at distinguishing sociopaths from "bright students" or we would have a hell of a problem with the graduates.

Won't someone please think of the children?!

see, I don't know about that. I think a system of justice is fundamentally flawed when we're saying "you might do it again, so we're keeping you in jail just in case".

That's contrary to our system of justice. Contrary to our understanding of the role of prisons. We can't just keep people in jail for fear of what they might do.

Isn't that essentially what we're doing anyway? We're curtailing these people's rights because of what we fear they might do. If we feel that their punishment has been insufficient, and they are not rehabilitated (which is ostensibly one of the purposes of prison), then allow for longer sentences for convicted sexual offenders. But don't release them from prison, implying we feel they have repaid their debt to society, and then say, "Oh wait, we're not done punishing you for your crime. House arrest."

On the other hand, if there is a strong risk of danger to children, shouldn't we do SOMETHING to minimize that?

Absolutely. But that something should not extend to removing their rights long after we have deemed them eligible to return to normal society.

Won't someone please think of the children?!

Or think less of the children, depending on the situation.

see, I don't know about that. I think a system of justice is fundamentally flawed when we're saying "you might do it again, so we're keeping you in jail just in case".

That's contrary to our system of justice. Contrary to our understanding of the role of prisons. We can't just keep people in jail for fear of what they might do.

On the other hand, if there is a strong risk of danger to children, shouldn't we do SOMETHING to minimize that?

As you already know, we disagree a bit as to the role of prisons. :p I agree that we shouldn't lock people up simply because they might be dangerous, but there's no question that judges and parole boards already take into account whether or not someone seems likely to reoffend. Would you really be comfortable letting someone out who'd served his time but who openly admitted that he had every intention of finding a new child to molest as soon as possible? Obviously, it's not usually so clear-cut, and I agree that it's a hard line to draw between "we think he probably won't reoffend" and "we think he probably will reoffend," but I do think a big part of the function of prisons is to protect society from people unable or unwilling to live by its rules.

That said, even if we're letting people out whom we think are dangers to society, we ought to at least come up with a less counterproductive way of keeping tabs on them. I really can't imagine that all the "you must live at least X distance from any schools, parks, etc." laws do any particular good at protecting children, and when they push sex offenders into homelessness or parole-breaking, they do definite harm.

As you already know, we disagree a bit as to the role of prisons. :p I agree that we shouldn't lock people up simply because they might be dangerous, but there's no question that judges and parole boards already take into account whether or not someone seems likely to reoffend. Would you really be comfortable letting someone out who'd served his time but who openly admitted that he had every intention of finding a new child to molest as soon as possible? Obviously, it's not usually so clear-cut, and I agree that it's a hard line to draw between "we think he probably won't reoffend" and "we think he probably will reoffend," but I do think a big part of the function of prisons is to protect society from people unable or unwilling to live by its rules.

Would I be comfortable with it? Of course not. But if the man has served his full sentence, then so be it. We can't proactively punish. It's immoral, contrary to our system of justice, and fundamentally unconstitutional.

That said, even if we're letting people out whom we think are dangers to society, we ought to at least come up with a less counterproductive way of keeping tabs on them. I really can't imagine that all the "you must live at least X distance from any schools, parks, etc." laws do any particular good at protecting children, and when they push sex offenders into homelessness or parole-breaking, they do definite harm.

Sure. I'm not saying I agree with the registry systems as they are, universally. I'm saying that they're not, at their core, basic, "all good intentions" reasoning, not such a bad idea.

Isn't that essentially what we're doing anyway? We're curtailing these people's rights because of what we fear they might do. If we feel that their punishment has been insufficient, and they are not rehabilitated (which is ostensibly one of the purposes of prison), then allow for longer sentences for convicted sexual offenders. But don't release them from prison, implying we feel they have repaid their debt to society, and then say, "Oh wait, we're not done punishing you for your crime. House arrest."

Well I think that's the question between punishment and protection. The US Supreme Court found that: "Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of legitimate governmental objection as punishment....The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender."

Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe

The problem becomes how far we are willing to go to "inform the public" for the purpose of "legitimate government objectives"?

Does informing the public where a convicted child rapist lives qualify? Yeah, probably.

Does it include giving out the name and address of a 23 year old who got drunk one night in college and took a piss on wall, thus exposing himself "to the public" and landed on a sex offender list? No, probably not.

Absolutely. But that something should not extend to removing their rights long after we have deemed them eligible to return to normal society.

Sure, I'm talking about those who are actually shown to be a risk.

Would I be comfortable with it? Of course not. But if the man has served his full sentence, then so be it. We can't proactively punish. It's immoral, contrary to our system of justice, and fundamentally unconstitutional.

Fair enough. I don't think there's exactly a "right" answer in that sort of situation, at least under our current legal system.


Sure. I'm not saying I agree with the registry systems as they are, universally. I'm saying that they're not, at their core, basic, "all good intentions" reasoning, not such a bad idea.

I don't quite understand why we don't have a murderer registry, then.

FI don't quite understand why we don't have a murderer registry, then.

Because murder isn't as bad as photographing a 17 year old naked. *nods*

I don't quite understand why we don't have a murderer registry, then.
Murderers aren't as likely to re-offend. Also, drug dealers are really likely to re-offend but we don't have a registry because it would be like the yellow pages for addicts.

I'm telling you, it's just a matter of time before we all have immobilizer chips in our spine, making us unable to do anything without government authorization. But not mandatory. No, we'll welcome these chips with open arms and line up for them, because they'll be less intolerable than the restrictions and regulations imposed otherwise.

It starts with sex offenders, later it will extend to people psychologically profiled to have a risk of committing a sexual offense, later to all people except those profiled to be safe, and if you're safe anyway, why not get the chip.

Because murder isn't as bad as photographing a 17 year old naked. *nods*
You do realize that at least some of the people on the sex offender registry actually abused children?
(looking at our local registry most of them are charged with sexual battery of a person under 13)

You do realize that at least some of the people on the sex offender registry actually abused children?
(looking at our local registry most of them are charged with sexual battery of a person under 13)

I do. However, even if you say that the sex offender registry is a good idea, you must admit that it has been poorly implemented, badly planned, applied too broadly, and is almost completely useless.

I don't quite understand why we don't have a murderer registry, then.

Because I think this more has to do with recidivism rate, as well as the depth of the crime. Are murderers, on the whole, that likely to commit murder a second time?

Hell, how many convicted murderers get out of jail in the first place?

Murderers aren't as likely to re-offend. Also, drug dealers are really likely to re-offend but we don't have a registry because it would be like the yellow pages for addicts.

Heh.

Well, that's the thing - either we're basing our actions on the likeliness of reoffense, or we're not. I don't think there's any doubt that the guy who raped five kindergarteners and says he can't wait to do it again is more of a risk than the guy who had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend when he was 18, but the law treats them the same way. Why be nicer to murderers?

Heh.

Well, that's the thing - either we're basing our actions on the likeliness of reoffense, or we're not. I don't think there's any doubt that the guy who raped five kindergarteners and says he can't wait to do it again is more of a risk than the guy who had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend when he was 18, but the law treats them the same way. Why be nicer to murderers?

again, fair, I think that a registry that does expose high risk convicts is a good thing, especially when it comes to children.

But when it does things like...trap fast food armed robbers as sex offenders because, during the robbery, they ordered a 15 year old worker to lie down, thus committing "false imprisonment of a minor", that gets a little ludicrous.

I do. However, even if you say that the sex offender registry is a good idea, you must admit that it has been poorly implemented, badly planned, applied too broadly, and is almost completely useless.
Oh, I think it's a horrible badly implemented idea. I also think that people on both sides are being intellectually dishonest, which is apparently my raw nerve today.
Heh.

Well, that's the thing - either we're basing our actions on the likeliness of reoffense, or we're not. I don't think there's any doubt that the guy who raped five kindergarteners and says he can't wait to do it again is more of a risk than the guy who had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend when he was 18, but the law treats them the same way. Why be nicer to murderers?
Because murderers might kill you?:p

see, I don't know about that. I think a system of justice is fundamentally flawed when we're saying "you might do it again, so we're keeping you in jail just in case".

That's contrary to our system of justice. Contrary to our understanding of the role of prisons. We can't just keep people in jail for fear of what they might do.

On the other hand, if there is a strong risk of danger to children, shouldn't we do SOMETHING to minimize that?
Why just single out children? Is the recidivism rate that high, when compared to other, similar felonies like rape and assault?

see, I don't know about that. I think a system of justice is fundamentally flawed when we're saying "you might do it again, so we're keeping you in jail just in case".

That's contrary to our system of justice. Contrary to our understanding of the role of prisons. We can't just keep people in jail for fear of what they might do.

But it isn't fundamentally flawed when we say, "you might do it again, so we're going to make it incredibly difficult for you to live anything even resembling a normal life?" Some sex offenders would actually be better off in jail, considering that the restrictions often force them into homelessness and make it nearly impossible for them to find jobs.

On the other hand, if there is a strong risk of danger to children, shouldn't we do SOMETHING to minimize that?

Probably, yes. Of course, I don't think that's the case with most registered sex offenders. If we absolutely must scarlet letter some offenders (and I'm not completely convinced that we must), then we should make sure it's only the ones who are actually dangers. The guy who sold a comic book shouldn't be on the list. The guy who was 18 and slept with his 16-year old girlfriend shouldn't be on the list. And so on...

Now, the person who raped a 3 year old? Yeah, that person's pretty scary.

Oh, I think it's a horrible badly implemented idea. I also think that people on both sides are being intellectually dishonest, which is apparently my raw nerve today.

That time?

Because murderers might kill you?:p

I loled.

again, fair, I think that a registry that does expose high risk convicts is a good thing, especially when it comes to children.

But when it does things like...trap fast food armed robbers as sex offenders because, during the robbery, they ordered a 15 year old worker to lie down, thus committing "false imprisonment of a minor", that gets a little ludicrous.

Absolutely. I would have a LOT less of an issue with the registry if it was a "dangerous people" registry rather than an "anyone who has ever done anything that we could possibly sort of pretend has something to do with sex and/or children, but not really scary people who just stuck with murdering 18-year-olds or robbing 47 convenience stores at gunpoint or something" registry.

Well I think that's the question between punishment and protection. The US Supreme Court found that: "Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of legitimate governmental objection as punishment....The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender."

Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe

The problem becomes how far we are willing to go to "inform the public" for the purpose of "legitimate government objectives"?

Does informing the public where a convicted child rapist lives qualify? Yeah, probably.

Does it include giving out the name and address of a 23 year old who got drunk one night in college and took a piss on wall, thus exposing himself "to the public" and landed on a sex offender list? No, probably not.

Is it 'informing the public' to require sex offenders to remain in their homes on Halloween unless they're participating in sanctioned actions?

Requiring a sex offender to notify his neighbors is one thing. Requiring a sex offender to post a sign on his house that he's a sex offender is that same thing. Telling a sex offender that he can't leave his home or he'll be arrested is quite another thing.

But it isn't fundamentally flawed when we say, "you might do it again, so we're going to make it incredibly difficult for you to live anything even resembling a normal life?" Some sex offenders would actually be better off in jail, considering that the restrictions often force them into homelessness and make it nearly impossible for them to find jobs.


Not only that, but look at it this way:

Alcoholics are more likely to fall off the wagon when stressed, depressed, lonely, etc. Now imagine the vice isn't alcohol but the compulsion to commit this kind of crime. (The treatment program is very similar, by the way.) So now you toss this person up on the registry for all to see, and have now massively increased the likelihood of them being stressed, depressed and lonely.

What do you think will happen next?

Is it 'informing the public' to require sex offenders to remain in their homes on Halloween unless they're participating in sanctioned actions?

Requiring a sex offender to notify his neighbors is one thing. Requiring a sex offender to post a sign on his house that he's a sex offender is that same thing. Telling a sex offender that he can't leave his home or he'll be arrested is quite another thing.

This. Because what if the guy just wants to go out to a bar with his friends and avoid the whole Halloween thing altogether? I don't know how it is in Missouri but in Maryland they also can't decorate for Halloween and nobody in t he household can hand out candy to the trick-or-treaters, even if the registrant is down in the basement watching TV the whole time.

Frankly all the bullshit that sex offenders have to deal with upon release, "child molesters" especially, just makes it a much better option to kill the victim after so as to not get caught. After all, you do much less time for murder and don't have to deal with being persecuted forever after getting out, and that's if you get busted in the first place.

So much for protecting the children, eh?

More importantly, child rapists tend to not be pedophiles in the first place. Pedophiles actually have strong feelings for children and don't want to hurt them. Rapists have no such issues.

After all, you do much less time for murder

Wait, what? You realize, I hope, that in most, if not all, states in this country, when you rape, then murder a child, they don't worry about what they're going to do with you once you're released. It doesn't really come up.

Wait, what? You realize, I hope, that in most, if not all, states in this country, when you rape, then murder a child, they don't worry about what they're going to do with you once you're released. It doesn't really come up.

You assume that they find the body soon enough that there would be evidence of rape. Most missing persons cases, children especially, don't get resolved that fast.

This. Because what if the guy just wants to go out to a bar with his friends and avoid the whole Halloween thing altogether? I don't know how it is in Missouri but in Maryland they also can't decorate for Halloween and nobody in t he household can hand out candy to the trick-or-treaters, even if the registrant is down in the basement watching TV the whole time.

I don't actually mind the "no handing out candy at this house" rule - you could potentially argue that it's a bit silly, but it's hardly an undue hardship, and it's easier than verifying that the actual sex offender doesn't come to the door while candy is being handed out. The "no leaving your house at all" rule, however, is just stupid.

I don't actually mind the "no handing out candy at this house" rule - you could potentially argue that it's a bit silly, but it's hardly an undue hardship, and it's easier than verifying that the actual sex offender doesn't come to the door while candy is being handed out. The "no leaving your house at all" rule, however, is just stupid.

What I've wondered is, for cases where the registrant is no longer on parole or probation, by what authority does the State order them to stay home?

Take into account the draconian measures that are imposed on registered sex offenders.

Now take into account how easily one can be registered as a sex offender, even for crimes and misdemeanors that have little or nothing to do with sexual assault.

Still not a concern because "those freaks deserve it"?

Take into account the draconian measures that are imposed on registered sex offenders.

Now take into account how easily one can be registered as a sex offender, even for crimes and misdemeanors that have little or nothing to do with sexual assault.

Still not a concern because "those freaks deserve it"?

Clearly NSG is pro-child rape.:p

There really isnt anything in this thread I can say that I havent already said in threads before it. Some of the measures taken towards sex offenders sickens me. The fact that statutory rape earns you a place on the kiddy touchers list infuriates me. If theyve done the time, leave em alone. And statutory rape laws as they stand now are BS.

More importantly, child rapists tend to not be pedophiles in the first place. Pedophiles actually have strong feelings for children and don't want to hurt them. Rapists have no such issues.

Normal heterosexual men have strong feelings for women and don't want to hurt them. So raping a woman is gay.

I understand that there are pedophiles who don't and don't want to hurt children. However, as far as I can tell rapists tend to target a specific group and not just anything that moves. When that specific group is children, then by any sensible definition the rapist is a pedophile.

Normal heterosexual men have strong feelings for women and don't want to hurt them. So raping a woman is gay.

I understand that there are pedophiles who don't and don't want to hurt children. However, as far as I can tell rapists tend to target a specific group and not just anything that moves. When that specific group is children, then by any sensible definition the rapist is a pedophile.

Rapists that rape children don't do it out of any special attraction. They target children because it's easy. When it comes to overpowering someone or manipulating them into getting what you want, a child is always the easiest option.

Rapists that rape children don't do it out of any special attraction. They target children because it's easy. When it comes to overpowering someone or manipulating them into getting what you want, a child is always the easiest option.

Convenience is not necessarily the only reason to choose a specific target. The fact that most child rapists choose only boys or only girls suggests there is more to it than just convenience. And when the motivation is not (only) to humiliate but (also) to "get what one wants", one would have find children attractive in the first place.

It's more than that. Child Molestors or Pedophiles (they're not the same thing) are typically drawn to a specific age of child. One might be attracted to, say, 7 year olds, but not to kids much younger or older.

In what way do you mean "not the same thing"?


pedophilia
n. The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.


I guess most pedophiles aren't child molestors, and in that sense they are not the same, however by definition a child molestor is also a pedophile.

In what way do you mean "not the same thing"?



I guess most pedophiles aren't child molestors, and in that sense they are not the same, however by definition a child molestor is also a pedophile.

I don't think so, tim.

Noun
pedophilia

1. sexual feelings directed towards children (OED). A paraphilia consisting of a primary adult sexual attraction to prepubescent children (DSM-IV: Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pedophilia

pedophile
–noun Psychiatry.
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophile

pedophilia
noun
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophilia

pedophile
n.
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedophile

In none of these definitions does it state that pedophilia has anything to do with an act. Pedophilia has no relationship to child molestation.

Child rapists don't get off because the victim is a child, they get off because they're exerting power over someone helpless. Pedophilia is not a factor.

I agree with the OP: sex offenders should never be released from prison.

I agree with the OP: sex offenders should never be released from prison.

Enjoy your life without parole when a drunk sixteen year old lies about her age and her parents find out.

I agree with the OP: sex offenders should never be released from prison.

I agree. No one should ever be released from prison, ever. For any crime.

Enjoy your life without parole when a drunk sixteen year old lies about her age and her parents find out.
If you're so worried about that, don't fuck anybody who still lives with their parents.

I agree. No one should ever be released from prison, ever. For any crime.
The only way this sarcasm would make sense is if you actually believe that all prisoners should eventually be released from prison.

Which, I'm assuming, you don't. So if you do believe that there are offenses which warrant life in prison, it would seem this simply comes down to a matter of opinion as to which crimes should require life sentences.

If you're so worried about that, don't fuck anybody who still lives with their parents.

If a drunken teenager is lying about their age, why would they bother to mention that they still live at home?

You're clearly not very bright.

If a drunken teenager is lying about their age, why would they bother to mention that they still live at home?

You're clearly not very bright.
Wait, so you're going around screwing people before you even know how old they are or where they live...and then you accuse other people of being dim?

Won't someone please think of the children?!

Well, the sex offenders certainly do. o_O

Wait, so you're going around screwing people before you even know how old they are or where they live...and then you accuse other people of being dim?
I know it must seem strange to you, what with never being invited to parties or anything.

I know it must seem strange to you, what with never being invited to parties or anything.
If you're going to try to insult me for not being cool, you might have wanted to do so BEFORE you advertised the fact that the only people who will sleep with you are the ones who haven't actually spoken with you. :P

If you're going to try to insult me for not being cool, you might have wanted to do so BEFORE you advertised the fact that the only people who will sleep with you are the ones who haven't actually spoken with you. :P

Those are the only ones who will sleep with me. :(

Those are the only ones who will sleep with me. :(
Old joke:

What does a drummer use for contraception?




His personality.

If you're going to try to insult me for not being cool, you might have wanted to do so BEFORE you advertised the fact that the only people who will sleep with you are the ones who haven't actually spoken with you. :P

Where did I ever say that I was sleeping with drunken highschool students? Good job grasping at straws there, pal.

Old joke:

What does a drummer use for contraception?




His personality.

Ouch.

Galloism approves of this joke. :D

Where did I ever say that I was sleeping with drunken highschool students? Good job grasping at straws there, pal.
Huh, you know, you're right...you actually did just say that I must be the one getting all the drunk high school tail. Right before you decided that I never get invited to parties at which I might meet said tail.

I apologize for not being able to follow you on this one. Your logic is quite different from our Earth logic.

Huh, you know, you're right...you actually did just say that I must be the one getting all the drunk high school tail. Right before you decided that I never get invited to parties at which I might meet said tail.

I apologize for not being able to follow you on this one. Your logic is quite different from our Earth logic.

You are a bad troll and you should just stop trying.

That interchange was a lesson in fail. "You're so uncool, you actually get people to know you, sober, before they agree to have sex with you! Loser."

The only way this sarcasm would make sense is if you actually believe that all prisoners should eventually be released from prison.

Which, I'm assuming, you don't. So if you do believe that there are offenses which warrant life in prison, it would seem this simply comes down to a matter of opinion as to which crimes should require life sentences.

No, the sarcasm works if I am able to comprehend that not every single criminal labelled a "sex offender" has committed a crime with the same degree of seriousness. Just like there can be extenuating circumstances that can change a person's sentence for killing a person, there can be extenuating circumstances that can change a person's sentence for a "sex" crime. Such as the aforementioned 18 year old sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend.

You seem to imply I invented the definition I quoted.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophilia
It's the second one, and on the following dictionary it's even the first one:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedophilia

Also:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pedophile (number 2)

Child rapists don't get off because the victim is a child, they get off because they're exerting power over someone helpless. Pedophilia is not a factor.

Maybe we should ask a number of child rapists if they would also rape adults if those were just as helpless as children are.
In any case, rape is a type of sex, and a child rapist desires to have that with children.

It might be news to you, but there are other motivations for rape than the power trip you think all child rapists have. One is lust without caring how the other feels about it, and the other is a delusion that the other actually wants it.

I'm sure many if not most pedophiles have no intention to harm children, and I bet that there are child rapists who have no preference for children other than convenience, but it's silly to claim all pedophiles are saints who never force others to do what they want, and that child rapists cannot also be pedophiles.

I love kids in a totally non-sexual way, and I've noticed people thinking I was a potential child rapist (probably because I'm a rather odd person in other ways). I guess that actual pedophiles will receive that insulting accusation hundreds of times more often. Very annoying, but let's not give up on logic just in order to make the "I'm not like them" argument.

I'm with Bryn on this one. I don't think there should be these asinine measures to "protect" children, since most of them do more harm than good. And I mean beyond this - I mean sex-ed, too. I mean censoring shit to make sure it has "age-appropriate" language or material, etc.

Rape is rape, and to make it worse because it was a kid is just emotional string-pulling rather than a rational response, thus is totally unjustifiable.

I can't remember the author, but the book Harmful to Minors is all about this kind of crap. It's a good and worthwhile read, for anyone who has the time.

EDIT: Re-reading, I noticed my post was a bit confusing. When I mean "sex-ed," I mean getting rid of the American "abstinence only" or "abstinence plus" bullshit in order to "not oversexualize kids."

I agree with the OP: sex offenders should never be released from prison.

I would be far less uncomfortable with this idea if statutory rape wasnt a crime.

I agree with the OP: sex offenders should never be released from prison.

Be careful saying crap like that. With the ever expanding litany of charges that can land you on that list, some pretty stupid crap would result in life sentences in your paradigm.

Be careful saying crap like that. With the ever expanding litany of charges that can land you on that list, some pretty stupid crap would result in life sentences in your paradigm.

My cousin mooned someone and almost ended up on the list. It was kind of funny.

No, the sarcasm works if I am able to comprehend that not every single criminal labelled a "sex offender" has committed a crime with the same degree of seriousness. Just like there can be extenuating circumstances that can change a person's sentence for killing a person, there can be extenuating circumstances that can change a person's sentence for a "sex" crime. Such as the aforementioned 18 year old sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend.

I know a guy, personally, who got screwed over. In brief, here's the story:

He had a young son whom he smacked for misbehaving. We're not talking about a simple spanking here, we're talking about crossing the line. As a result, he was charged with physical abuse. (So far so good.) Well this was during the process of his divorce, and his wife, either through malice or paranoia, threw in an accusation of sexual abuse.

Now mind you, this was determined to have been a false allegation after further investigation, and even the now ex wife admits there was nothing to it, but upon his release from prison (for the physical abuse charge) he was ordered, by the judge (as a result of a reccomendation by the DA) to register as a child sex offender. FOR LIFE. "Just in case."

Nothing in his conviction had anything whatsoever to do with sexual abuse of any kind, and yet on nothing but a "just in case" recommendation he now has to bear the humiliation until the day he dies.

Or go back to jail.

This is in Maryland. I don't know if something like that could happen in other states but I did hear of a case on the radio that an Ohio man was ordered to register because of accusations by his ex wife even though he never has any charged filed against him.

This witch hunt has run amok. Good thing this ain't Bottle's world.

On a serious note. This likely has to do with Society recently deeming attraction to teenagers unacceptable. Even though this is a normal attraction. So perhaps society targets sex offenders as a means to scape goat their own attractions they feel guilty about.

If you really think about it, girls are starting to dress sluttier and sluttier, but a lot of times, a woman will walk down the street looking like Super-Slut, and when guys look at her, she will shoot them a look like "What the f*** are you looking at me for?!" It's like these women don't understand that if you dress like a total slut, mens' eyes will be drawn to them. That's like carrying around a Nazi banner and expecting people not to insult you, for crying out loud!

My cousin mooned someone and almost ended up on the list. It was kind of funny.

LOL

Actually I know of another guy who almost did too. He was caught masturbating in his car with is girlfriend. Apparently the only reason he didn't have to register was that no children happened to see him do it.

Think about that for a second. No kids happened to see it, and that made all the difference. So it's not the act itself, apparently, but rather random chance of who happens to be in the area at that moment.

This doesn't strike me as particularly rational.

Neo Bretonnia, the way this country handles Civil Rights is getting more irrational by the second.

INow mind you, this was determined to have been a false allegation after further investigation, and even the now ex wife admits there was nothing to it, but upon his release from prison (for the physical abuse charge) he was ordered, by the judge (as a result of a reccomendation by the DA) to register as a child sex offender. FOR LIFE. "Just in case."

Nothing in his conviction had anything whatsoever to do with sexual abuse of any kind, and yet on nothing but a "just in case" recommendation he now has to bear the humiliation until the day he dies.

Or go back to jail.

This is in Maryland. I don't know if something like that could happen in other states but I did hear of a case on the radio that an Ohio man was ordered to register because of accusations by his ex wife even though he never has any charged filed against him..

That...doesnt seem legal.

That...doesnt seem legal.

I agree completely, but the problem is that public opinion is so polarized against these guys that nobody gives a damn. Politicians trot out their "tougher sex offender" laws to get re-elected and everybody hops on the bandwagon because nobody wants to seem like they don't care.

The guy I wrote about who got tacked on even though he didn't sexually abuse his son has been fighting it like crazy but his biggest obstacles are:

1) The fact that he signed the registry in the first place (mind you, they wouldn't have let him out of prison if he didn't, so how that's not a coerced signature I don't know.)

2) The person in charge of maintaining the list has a hostile attitude toward those on it, and even though he has spoken to her many times she never seems to get around to calling him back.

He's going to have to get a lawyer and fight it in court, but surprise: he's having trouble finding a job.

Neo Bretonnia, the way this country handles Civil Rights is getting more irrational by the second.

Indeed. I wonder how it is in other countries. Better? Worse? Do they even do this sort of stuff?

I know a guy, personally, who got screwed over. In brief, here's the story:

He had a young son whom he smacked for misbehaving. We're not talking about a simple spanking here, we're talking about crossing the line. As a result, he was charged with physical abuse. (So far so good.) Well this was during the process of his divorce, and his wife, either through malice or paranoia, threw in an accusation of sexual abuse.

Now mind you, this was determined to have been a false allegation after further investigation, and even the now ex wife admits there was nothing to it, but upon his release from prison (for the physical abuse charge) he was ordered, by the judge (as a result of a reccomendation by the DA) to register as a child sex offender. FOR LIFE. "Just in case."

Nothing in his conviction had anything whatsoever to do with sexual abuse of any kind, and yet on nothing but a "just in case" recommendation he now has to bear the humiliation until the day he dies.

Or go back to jail.

This is in Maryland. I don't know if something like that could happen in other states but I did hear of a case on the radio that an Ohio man was ordered to register because of accusations by his ex wife even though he never has any charged filed against him.

This witch hunt has run amok. Good thing this ain't Bottle's world.

I've heard a similar story.

Here you have a college graduate who had been in bed before with his girlfriend, who lied to him about being 18 (she was younger). When he found out, she threatened him that if he left her she would tell the polie that he raped her. He left her anyway, she told the police what happened, and he ends up on the registration.

End to the story from what I heard: The neighborhood that they lived in heard about it too, and they didn't like it at all. They were so angry at her for doing that, they eventually ran her out of the neighborhood because her family couldn't handle the ridicule and the rocks being thrown at the house.

I agree completely, but the problem is that public opinion is so polarized against these guys that nobody gives a damn. Politicians trot out their "tougher sex offender" laws to get re-elected and everybody hops on the bandwagon because nobody wants to seem like they don't care.

The guy I wrote about who got tacked on even though he didn't sexually abuse his son has been fighting it like crazy but his biggest obstacles are:

1) The fact that he signed the registry in the first place (mind you, they wouldn't have let him out of prison if he didn't, so how that's not a coerced signature I don't know.)

2) The person in charge of maintaining the list has a hostile attitude toward those on it, and even though he has spoken to her many times she never seems to get around to calling him back.

He's going to have to get a lawyer and fight it in court, but surprise: he's having trouble finding a job.

While I sympathize with his position, I wonder why he's only getting around to getting a lawyer NOW. If it even SOUNDED like the DA was CONSIDERING childhood sexual abuse charges, the first, last, and only words to cross my lips would be "lawyer".

And I am one.

I've heard a similar story.

Here you have a college graduate who had been in bed before with his girlfriend, who lied to him about being 18 (she was younger). When he found out, she threatened him that if he left her she would tell the polie that he raped her. He left her anyway, she told the police what happened, and he ends up on the registration.

End to the story from what I heard: The neighborhood that they lived in heard about it too, and they didn't like it at all. They were so angry at her for doing that, they eventually ran her out of the neighborhood because her family couldn't handle the ridicule and the rocks being thrown at the house.

There was a case in Georgia where an 18 year old man got oral from his 16 year old girlfriend and got a prison sentence of something like 10 years. After he's out he'll be registered for life.

Mind you, they changed the law shortly after his conviction because of public response, and made it so that that particular circumstance wasn't a crime anymore. Problem is, they won't let him out of prison.

While I sympathize with his position, I wonder why he's only getting around to getting a lawyer NOW. If it even SOUNDED like the DA was CONSIDERING childhood sexual abuse charges, the first, last, and only words to cross my lips would be "lawyer".

And I am one.

Apparently the sex abuse stuff came out during the trial for the physical abuse, so he already had a lawyer and I presume that's how the charges got dropped. He only just got out of prison a few months before he told me the story, so maybe by now things have changed. I haven't seen him in over a year.

There was a case in Georgia where an 18 year old man got oral from his 16 year old girlfriend and got a prison sentence of something like 10 years. After he's out he'll be registered for life.

Mind you, they changed the law shortly after his conviction because of public response, and made it so that that particular circumstance wasn't a crime anymore. Problem is, they won't let him out of prison.

actually I'm fairly certain the state supreme court threw out that conviction.

actually I'm fairly certain the state supreme court threw out that conviction.

Did they free the guy? Preferably with a nice check for what they put him through?

yes here we go: link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html)

yes here we go: link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html)

Good. And did he get any compensation for it?

actually I'm fairly certain the state supreme court threw out that conviction.

yes here we go: link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html)

I'm very glad to hear that. Thanks for posting the update.

Good. And did he get any compensation for it?

HAHA No.

I agree with the OP: sex offenders should never be released from prison.

I also think that selling a comic book or peeing on a wall should be enough to get you life in prison. I'm just not sure we have enough prison space...

If your going to do this, why not use the same rational and prevent registered sex offenders, who have served their time just like a burglar or murderer or shoplifter, and preventn them from leaving thier house at 8 am and 3 pm when kids walk home from school? Why not ban them from leaving their house on weekends or ban them from a movie theater or ban them from a parade or ban them from anything else that you can even remotely tie to a place where other humans might go.
Please don't give our politicians any more bright ideas!

I also think that selling a comic book or peeing on a wall should be enough to get you life in prison. I'm just not sure we have enough prison space...

If we use the Stimulus package to build prisons...

I also think that selling a comic book or peeing on a wall should be enough to get you life in prison. I'm just not sure we have enough prison space...

You've just pegged my sarcasm detector ;)