04 Feb 07
Originally posted by slappy115Pehaps we should just set them all free and arm them with cash as the beacon of wisdom brother Edwin suggest so they can by plenty of candy and puppies and move into flexmore neighborhood.
Yeah, it's better to have children abused behind closed doors, not in public.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
04 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyMegan's law aside, i think if you asked people what is a paedophile that most people would not classify your example as one. Would the general layman know Megan's Law? I don't know, i'm not American and would not have a clue whether the lay person is familiar with it.
The activities in question include streaking, skinny dipping, public urination, and mooning. Consensual sodomy, adultery, and oral sex are also crimes for which one could be declared a sex offender and required to register under the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan%27s_Law
So one day some bloke takes a piss in public, and he is branded a s ...[text shortened]... for any excuse to attack people (maybe because they have nothing better to do with their lives).
The people who i refer to are the people of the same ilk as Clarence Osborne (2500 boys over a 20 year period) and William Allen (2000 boys). Extreme examples, but i'm sure a bit of research would identify a whole lot of others who are significantly less, but no doubt still outrageously high numbers. Seriously, what man or women in general would have sex with that many people in their life time (rock stars aside maybe).
Stocken, you mentioned in a previous post that they don't intend to hurt children, well this report suggests the reason why they are not likely to hurt children is because it risks terminating the relationship, not because they are sympathetic to the fact that they are taking advantage of young children.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/12/ch3.pdf
These people get away with this molestation for years and sometimes their lifetime for various reasons. In most cases, it is predictable and premeditated behaviour. Surely, they know what they are doing is wrong but they just convince themselves otherwise to justify such behaviour.
If you commit a criminal act you go to jail and certain rights are forefeited. Exactly what type of rights are being forfeited when they are back in the community?
If they are subject to mob violence, they have a right to protection from the law.
04 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by chrissybWe're not talking specifically paedophiles here. Can't you see that? I
Megan's law aside, i think if you asked people what is a paedophile that most people would not classify your example as one.
agree with bvb. There's definitely different levels to how serious an
offence is and the law should consider and deal with that. But I suppose
that would cost too much. Better to just put them all in the same box
and kick it off a hill. Problem solved. And the rest of us can live like
friggin' monks*, just to make sure we'll never be sex offenders ourselves.
What a fullfilling and natural life we could lead that way. Woo-hooo!
* I kinda like the similarity between monk and monkey, hu hu... Though
a monkey makes way more sense, but you can tell just by reading the
words that the monkey is more complete, so nothing bad about a monk
here, hu hu...
04 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by chrissybWe both know that this is all about paranoia. You hear about a sex
If you commit a criminal act you go to jail and certain rights are forefeited. Exactly what type of rights are being forfeited when they are back in the community?
If they are subject to mob violence, they have a right to protection from the law.
offender living next door, and the next thing you know your puny little
brain conjures up thousands of outrageously horrible scenarios about
your kids with that person. You tell the other neighbours and relatives
and the whole mess grows until you're all practically ready to lynch the
bastard. The sad part is that there's no real help from the police to
expect for him/her in most parts of the world, because being a sex
offender is the worst you can possibly be (apparently even worse than
being a sleezy, manipulating politician or capitalist in some people's
eyes - go figure).
I say that when time is served, it's served. Gone and over with. If there's
any concern on the psychiatrists or psychologists part about the person,
they in unison with the court of law should take necessary
actions. Otherwise, leave the bugger alone. (S)he's done his/her time
and should be considered free and ready to reintegrate with society as
one of us all.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by stockenafter reading your top para went back to OP 😳
We're not talking specifically paedophiles here. Can't you see that? I
agree with bvb. There's definitely different levels to how serious an
offence is and the law should consider and deal with that. But I suppose
that would cost too much. Better to just put them all in the same box
and kick it off a hill. Problem solved. And the rest of us can live ...[text shortened]... the
words that the monkey is more complete, so nothing bad about a monk
here, hu hu...
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by chrissybSorry if I seemed a bit harsch on you. 😕 I do understand what you
after reading your top para went back to OP 😳
were talking about, and I want to make sure you understand I'm not a
cold bastard without any sympathy for girls and boys that have fallen
victim to a seriously deranged paedophile as the kind you were talking
about. I just don't think it helps them a whole lot if we all go paranoia
about every little sex offence or deny even the toughest offenders the
chance to do better (if they want to and clearly show they're trying). The
way I see it, such an intolerant position can't lead to any good, no
matter how right it may feel as we're burning the offender at the
stake for what (s)he's done.
Besides, I really don't think "normal" people like you and me are in any
position to say whether or not a sex offender can or have changed for
the better, so it's best left to people who work with this on a daily basis;
who has the proper education, training and experience to deal with sex
offenders of various degrees. They make mistakes sometimes (like all
humans) but they're definitely more qualified than average Joe to decide
whether or not an individual is ready to reintegrate with society again.
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by NemesioI only know roughly what Megan's law is. But it seems to me there are two major problems with "Sex offenders registration" schemes, no matter in which country they're in use.
(This is a call-out for no1marauder, in a way.)
We all know that recidivism is unusually high for child molesters, and,
unlike most other offenses, the older one gets, the more likely they
are to commit this crime.
In America, we have Megan's Law, in which convicted sex offenders are
obligated to register their address with a local agency, stay a ce ...[text shortened]... ence on its implications and was
hoping to hear a little debate on the issue.
Nemesio
1. The amount of people on it. An 18 year old boy having consensual sex with a 16 year old gir, for example, shouldn't be on this list. I agree it should be up for debate if it's legal or not, but the lad shouldn't be put on a sex offenders list.
2. Stigmitisation.
The perfect example was in Britain during one of their 4-yearly sex-offender-witch hunts. a Pediatrician got dragged out of his house and beaten up, because the group of vigilantes thought that the notice on his house was pronouncing him a sex offender (true story).
Pedofilia shouldn't be seen as a crime, but as a disease.
As such they shouldn't be locked up, but should be given treatment. If the group of psychiatrists deem him/her to unstable to live in a normal community, they should decide where best to keep him (and this could be in a closed environment).
Making the subject of pedofilia taboo, only makes people keep it underground. That means it is harder to locate, diagnose and help people, before it's too late.
04 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI agree.
I... If the group of psychiatrists deem him/her to unstable too live in a normal community, they should decide where best to keep him (and this could be in a closed environment). .....
Except I rewrite it as:
...(and this must be in a closed environment). ...
The rights of potential child victims must outweigh the rights of an adult abuser, and also inconvenience to the local government.
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by flexmoreIt would be up to the psychiatrists.
I agree.
Except I rewrite it as:
...(and this [b]must be in a closed environment). ...
The rights of potential child victims must outweigh the rights of an adult abuser, and also inconvenience to the local government.[/b]
If they decide the person in question is of no harm to society (fully de-programmed, whatever), then it need not be a closed environment.
There are a multitude of scenarios.
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by shavixmirsounds like we agree on the intention, but disagree on the exact writing required to express our intentions.
It would be up to the psychiatrists.
If they decide the person in question is of no harm to society (fully de-programmed, whatever), then it need not be a closed environment.
There are a multitude of scenarios.
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by shavixmirHere's a discussion of "Megan's Laws" (grrrrr): http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/megans_law.html
I only know roughly what Megan's law is. But it seems to me there are two major problems with "Sex offenders registration" schemes, no matter in which country they're in use.
1. The amount of people on it. An 18 year old boy having consensual sex with a 16 year old gir, for example, shouldn't be on this list. I agree it should be up for debate if it's ...[text shortened]... nd. That means it is harder to locate, diagnose and help people, before it's too late.
In theory I have no problem with the community knowing of the presence of convicted molesters in their neighborhood. I do think that these laws are overboard in the "crimes" they include as ones that mandate registeration. And as the article points out, most cases of sexual molesting of children are done by the victim's family or "friends", so that the presence of the lists might lead to a misleading sense of security.
05 Feb 07
Any law which leaves no room for discretion and consideration of the individual case is inherently likely to produce unjust results. This is especially true if the law is broadly framed.
For this reason I'm generally not in favour of laws with mandatory sentences.
A little over a year ago, Singapore applied its mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking to an Australian who had a few extra grams of heroin over the magic 'death sentence' amount. He was trying to make money to cover a serious gambling debt his brother had incurred. The court made it quite clear that if it had ANY discretion, it would have given him a heavy jail sentence rather than the death penalty. But it had no discretion.
That's just one example. There are plenty of others. 'Three strikes' legislation sending people to jail for long periods for trivial crimes is also a known occurrence - because legislators were too lazy to consider which crimes were actually WORTHY of long periods in jail.
Similarly, legislators are too lazy (in the midst of public hysteria) to consider whether all 'sex offences' are truly alike.