Omaha Red Sox wrote:In theory, I'm all for this. These people are less than human in my eyes so I wouldn't have an issue with stripping them of every right we possibly can. However, and this goes for the laws that prohibit them from being miles away from schools, parks, daycares, libraries, etc., anywhere a kid might be, you take away all these things and what will they do? They'll go underground. And then you've lost all control. The number of unregistered offenders goes up. I'm not saying there shouldn't be restrictions, there definitely should be, but I don't think we're preventing these offenses as much as we think we are by taking liberties away all the time. We have to remember, just like with gun laws, these people do not respect the law, therefore, they will break the law. To expect otherwise is naive and dangerous.
Agreed, although the sex offender label can be assigned with a very broad and unfair brush in some cases. Things like high schoolers having consensual sex can get someone plastered with that label. False allegation of rape (happened to a friend, thankfully charges were dismissed) where the benefit of the doubt very often falls to the woman. Also, many of these people are not mentally ill, have paid their dues in prison time (much worse for sex offenders of all stripes apparently than other offenses) and would stand to benefit all of society by becoming productive and upstanding members post-release. Zoning restrictions make this very difficult. There is certainly a place for some safeguards due to recidivism (not sure what the rates are for various crimes) but keeping them registered and out in the open offers better control. I read some article a month or so ago about a group of sex offenders that lived homeless under an overpass b/c it was the only liveable place within a certain area due to sex offender residency rules. I'm sure that wasn't a provision of their sentencing.
acsguitar wrote:Also many of these people are mentally ill
Yeah, that's pretty vague though isn't it? I mean, I don't know about clinically, but I would imagine anyone capable of such things have a degree of mental illness.
Omaha Red Sox wrote:In theory, I'm all for this. These people are less than human in my eyes so I wouldn't have an issue with stripping them of every right we possibly can. However, and this goes for the laws that prohibit them from being miles away from schools, parks, daycares, libraries, etc., anywhere a kid might be, you take away all these things and what will they do? They'll go underground. And then you've lost all control. The number of unregistered offenders goes up. I'm not saying there shouldn't be restrictions, there definitely should be, but I don't think we're preventing these offenses as much as we think we are by taking liberties away all the time. We have to remember, just like with gun laws, these people do not respect the law, therefore, they will break the law. To expect otherwise is naive and dangerous.
Agreed, although the sex offender label can be assigned with a very broad and unfair brush in some cases. Things like high schoolers having consensual sex can get someone plastered with that label. False allegation of rape (happened to a friend, thankfully charges were dismissed) where the benefit of the doubt very often falls to the woman.
I know a guy through a guy who is a registered sex offender because he had consensual sex with a 15-year old when he was 18. I think that's what the ages were. Either way, whether it was wrong for him to do what he did or not, he's not in the same company as pedophiles. It's a slippery slope when you start relegating levels of severity of child predator crimes, but that particular label shouldn't be placed on this guy, who now has to stay registered as a sex offender for the remainder of his life.
RugbyD wrote: Also, many of these people are not mentally ill, have paid their dues in prison time (much worse for sex offenders of all stripes apparently than other offenses) and would stand to benefit all of society by becoming productive and upstanding members post-release.
Meh, personally, I'm not going to go out of my way to make these people more comfortable in society, only if it benefits innocent people. I believe in forgiveness, but have a difficult time doing so in these cases. I understand what you're saying, people can change, but look at it this way; if this guy, a former sex offender, was allowed to work in a day care or school would you be ok with your kid being under his care, I mean, if he was "rehabilitated". I would guess no. And I think it's because we all know how horrible of a crime this is and that it takes an awful person to be capable of such a thing. This guy was, at one time anyway, capable of it. Whether he is now or not, I can't think of any parents who would willingly take that chance.
RugbyD wrote:Zoning restrictions make this very difficult. There is certainly a place for some safeguards due to recidivism (not sure what the rates are for various crimes) but keeping them registered and out in the open offers better control. I read some article a month or so ago about a group of sex offenders that lived homeless under an overpass b/c it was the only liveable place within a certain area due to sex offender residency rules. I'm sure that wasn't a provision of their sentencing.
Completely agree. I'd imagine law enforcement probably had only a loose knowledge of where these people were or who they were, thus potentially making them more of a danger.
Art Vandelay wrote:The way that sex offender registries have been implemented and used is one of the all-time dumb ideas.
+1
On the point of sex offender != pedophile here are some other ways you can be put on the sex offender list:
Peeing outdoors Your minor child having sex with another minor Breastfeeding Taking pictures of your children in the bathtub Minor who takes "sexual" pictures of themselves with a camera phone (even non-nude)
I'm all for keeping pedobear away from my children which is what I'm sure the intentions are for a law like this. But lawmakers anymore seem so out of touch with not only the technology they try to control, but with the current laws themselves.
Art Vandelay wrote:The way that sex offender registries have been implemented and used is one of the all-time dumb ideas.
+1
On the point of sex offender != pedophile here are some other ways you can be put on the sex offender list:
Peeing outdoors Your minor child having sex with another minor Breastfeeding Taking pictures of your children in the bathtub Minor who takes "sexual" pictures of themselves with a camera phone (even non-nude)
I'm all for keeping pedobear away from my children which is what I'm sure the intentions are for a law like this. But lawmakers anymore seem so out of touch with not only the technology they try to control, but with the current laws themselves.
What is this, a checklist of your Saturday nights?
Omaha Red Sox wrote:In theory, I'm all for this. These people are less than human in my eyes so I wouldn't have an issue with stripping them of every right we possibly can. However, and this goes for the laws that prohibit them from being miles away from schools, parks, daycares, libraries, etc., anywhere a kid might be, you take away all these things and what will they do? They'll go underground. And then you've lost all control. The number of unregistered offenders goes up. I'm not saying there shouldn't be restrictions, there definitely should be, but I don't think we're preventing these offenses as much as we think we are by taking liberties away all the time. We have to remember, just like with gun laws, these people do not respect the law, therefore, they will break the law. To expect otherwise is naive and dangerous.
Just make sure I understand, your not saying sex offenders are just like people who have guns (Legally) are you?
“Never argue with a idiot, because first they will bring you down to their level. Then beat you with experience.”
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by RugbyD » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:03 pm 
