Sex Offenders

[5stringJeff]

Why must sex offenders register with the government? Now, of course, I know the answer: so the government can keep track of them. If they're such a threat, then extend their sentences and keep them in jail. If they are no longer a threat, then let them out and put them on the same type of probation that other prisoners have. But to have sex offenders out in society that are still deemed to be a threat, only to make them half-citizens, is ridiculous.

[nevadamedic]

Why must sex offenders register with the government? Now, of course, I know the answer: so the government can keep track of them. If they're such a threat, then extend their sentences and keep them in jail. If they are no longer a threat, then let them out and put them on the same type of probation that other prisoners have. But to have sex offenders out in society that are still deemed to be a threat, only to make them half-citizens, is ridiculous.

Maybe you should ask Mike Hucklebee.

[5stringJeff]

Maybe you should ask Mike Hucklebee (sic).

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with that particular case. What I'm talking about is level 1 and 2 sex offenders who are judged to have a lower propensity to reoffend. Why are those particular offenders required to register, keep away from schools, etc. when other ex-felons are not?

[LiberalNation]

Cuz people are set against certain crimes and want more punishment for them. You can't put the ones already out back in jail so making them register is a logical next thing you could push through.

[nevadamedic]

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with that particular case. What I'm talking about is level 1 and 2 sex offenders who are judged to have a lower propensity to reoffend. Why are those particular offenders required to register, keep away from schools, etc. when other ex-felons are not?

Tier 0 and 1 Sex Offenders are considered low risk and are allowed to live by schools etc. They are people who get popped for Statutory Seduction and indecent exposure type of crimes.

[5stringJeff]

Cuz people are set against certain crimes and want more punishment for them. You can't put the ones already out back in jail so making them register is a logical next thing you could push through.

Actually, you could put them back in jail if they've registered and you know where they are.

[5stringJeff]

Tier 0 and 1 Sex Offenders are considered low risk and are allowed to live by schools etc. They are people who get popped for Statutory Seduction and indecent exposure type of crimes.

And why should they have to register?

[LiberalNation]

Actually, you could put them back in jail if they've registered and you know where they are.
Isn't that double jeopordy or something. They've already been tried, sentenced, and served their time. You can't give them more time with no new charges.

[trobinett]

Well, what a load of BS.

It doesn't do any good to have them register, when they actually do, cause they will repeat their offense, time, and time again.

Probation, by, and large, is a fucking joke, so, to think that REQUIRING sex offenders to REGISTER, is the fix all to their problems, and OURS, is just putting your head in the sand. What a shame for our children, we are NOT handling this situation correctly.

Sex offenders, should be handled differently, and aren't, until they are, you'll have the mess we have now.

Apply COMMON sense............:slap:

[nevadamedic]

And why should they have to register?

I don't think they should, I think only the high risk ones should have to. Tier 0 and 1 are generally Misdemenors.

[nevadamedic]

Isn't that double jeopordy or something. They've already been tried, sentenced, and served their time. You can't give them more time with no new charges.

It's considered part of the punishment so technically it's not double jeopardy.

[mrg666]

Cuz people are set against certain crimes and want more punishment for them. You can't put the ones already out back in jail so making them register is a logical next thing you could push through.

is that right or wrong ?

[avatar4321]

if sex offenders are so blatantly harmful to society that they need to register when they are released, why are they released? Why not apply the death penalty?

[nevadamedic]

if sex offenders are so blatantly harmful to society that they need to register when they are released, why are they released? Why not apply the death penalty?

Because the bleeding heart Liberals would throw a shit fit.

[JohnDoe]

if sex offenders are so blatantly harmful to society that they need to register when they are released, why are they released? Why not apply the death penalty?
because in general, our punishments for crimes follow the theory of an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth....

in other words, the punishment should fit the crime.

one is usually not killed if they did not kill themselves....

this does not mean that the way we have it set up is the just punishment, it could be that the punishment is too weak and this needs adjusting.

--------------------------------

and jeff, as was mentioned earlier, the registration after jail, IS part of the punishment of committing those offences.

jd

[gabosaurus]

I totally agree. And it irritates me to no end.
If a person is convicted of ONE sex crime, no matter how severe or minor, he/she is forced to register and demoted to less than human. But the same person can be convicted countless times of DUI/DWI and not even serve prison time.
I know most will disagree with me, but I would MUCH rather live by a guy who looks at porn than a person who drives drunk. How many kids are killed by pedophiles, compared to those who are killed by drunks?

The problem is that our society is way too puritanical. The alcohol industry has a huge lobby. Tons of DWI lawyers advertise their services. When was the last time you saw a huge ad for a lawyer who defends sex offenders?
The celebs who drive drunk hire top dollar attorneys to get them off. The ones who get involved in sex scandals are often ruined forever.

It's time for society to stop being hypocritical. If the dude who shot two people, served his time and then got released can live next to you, why can't the person who had kiddie porn on computer do the same?

[5stringJeff]

if sex offenders are so blatantly harmful to society that they need to register when they are released, why are they released? Why not apply the death penalty?

That's what I'm saying... except I don't think the death penalty need necessarily apply in all cases. But if they're still a threat, keep them in jail.

[Abbey Marie]

I suppose you could ask these sex offenders if they'd rather live with all the registration and domicile restrictions, or still be in jail. I think I know what they would say.

[Dilloduck]

because in general, our punishments for crimes follow the theory of an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth....

in other words, the punishment should fit the crime.

one is usually not killed if they did not kill themselves....

this does not mean that the way we have it set up is the just punishment, it could be that the punishment is too weak and this needs adjusting.

--------------------------------

and jeff, as was mentioned earlier, the registration after jail, IS part of the punishment of committing those offences.

jd

What is the "just" punishment that fits the crime of raping a child ?

[Abbey Marie]

What is the "just" punishment that fits the crime of raping a child ?

Snippety-snip, then death.

[Cheyenne]

And why should they have to register?

Exactly. I know two different families that have been affected by this. Both of the offenders have been young men, not retarded but sort of dull. Functional, but don't quite understand how some things are not permitted. I don't know if I'm explaining this right or not.

The one was celebrating with a couple of girls, jumping up & down over some good news & he touched the one girl's boob. She didn't report him as she understood; but someone else in the office who saw it, did. He is serving time & will be labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

The other one was just released from prison. A similar situation.

And what about the 17 year old boy whose dating a 16 year old girl and they're having sex? When he turns 18 he is an adult and now it's wrong. I know of one such incident where the parents were aware of this but an aunt reported this young man. His life has been destroyed.

[JohnDoe]

What is the "just" punishment that fits the crime of raping a child ?
Something MUCH greater than what is given now as punishment, just short of death. And abbey's snippity snip, is getting closer to what I think would be just punishment for raping a child.

jd

[Dilloduck]

Something MUCH greater than what is given now as punishment, just short of death. And abbey's snippity snip, is getting closer to what I think would be just punishment for raping a child.

jd

and females ? what happens to them ?

[JohnDoe]

and females ? what happens to them ? Ahhhhhh, the "female vs male" thing... I suppose there is something that could be done medically that could give the same effect, such as a hysterectomy of the ovaries, but not certain on that...? honestly, i am not certain if the crimes are equal when it comes to using force or not, in a rape situation, not a statutory rape but a violent rape.... i am obviously not a male and do not know if they could get it up, if they were being violently raped or not???? if a boner is what would happen regardless... is another story and she should be held to the same standards as the male in a violent rape... again, i am only speculating on this and would need to become more knowledgable of the subject.

jd

[Dilloduck]

Ahhhhhh, the "female vs male" thing... I suppose there is something that could be done medically that could give the same effect, such as a hysterectomy of the ovaries, but not certain on that...? honestly, i am not certain if the crimes are equal when it comes to using force or not, in a rape situation, not a statutory rape but a violent rape.... i am obviously not a male and do not know if they could get it up, if they were being violently raped or not???? if a boner is what would happen regardless... is another story and she should be held to the same standards as the male in a violent rape... again, i am only speculating on this and would need to become more knowledgable of the subject.

jd

A male pediphile should be castrated and killed seems to be the consensus. Is sexual abuse by a female a lesser crime ?

[JohnDoe]

A male pediphile should be castrated and killed seems to be the consensus. Is sexual abuse by a female a lesser crime ?
I am not one to say that a male pedophile should be killed, but certainly locked up for near forever and or castrated.

it is known to be a disease that is near incurable....and one that will be repeated if let out of prison.

What I have a hard time knowing is whether a woman can rape a male child, under the age of puberty with intercourse, but she certainly could perform "other" acts on to the male child or female child that would be just as offensive. In these cases, I think that she is just as much an endangerment to the child victimized as the male pedophile would be....and the punishment should be of equal value as the male's imho.

Then there is the cases of ephebophilia, which is the attraction to post pubescent children, or teens under the age of 18 or under the age of consent which differs in each state....statutory rape, which can be consented to by the teen but is still considered by law, a lesser offense than rape of a prepubescent child, (by pedophiles). and there is an actual rape by force of those children in their teens, which is as grave as any violent rape situation with an adult or even greater in my opinion.

I know my husband said that he lost his virginity as a young teen while under the age of legal consent, by a girl that was about 4 years older than him who was around the age of 18....and to this day, he says he wouldn't have had it any other way....which is pretty messed up to me, but that is what he says?

Would what was done to him by a legal adult female, be one of the cases that you think the perp should be locked up for life or killed for.....?

I suppose I would not, in the cases similar to my husband's case...but if it were my own son....I just don't know how angry I would be....?

I know if it were my daughter at the age of 13-14 and an 18 year old male did this to her I would be pretty angry so I suppose I would be just as angry with this happening to a son....but like I have said above, I can't be so certain.

I guess the bottom line for me, is that a pedophile that raped a child under the age of puberty would and should be treated the same, whether male or female.

But when speaking about statutory rape, where the teen consented to the sex with the adult, it would depend on the actual circumstances of the rape....as one example....whether it was an 18 year old with a 15 year old or a 40 year old with a 15 year old and things like this.....

I still do have a hard time with knowing whether a 20 year old woman can violently rape a 15 year old boy at knifepoint or by mere force, where I know it is feasible for a 20 year old male to do this to a 15 year old girl.

jd

[Dilloduck]

I am not one to say that a male pedophile should be killed, but certainly locked up for near forever and or castrated.

it is known to be a disease that is near incurable....and one that will be repeated if let out of prison.

What I have a hard time knowing is whether a woman can rape a male child, under the age of puberty with intercourse, but she certainly could perform "other" acts on to the male child or female child that would be just as offensive. In these cases, I think that she is just as much an endangerment to the child victimized as the male pedophile would be....and the punishment should be of equal value as the male's imho.

Then there is the cases of ephebophilia, which is the attraction to post pubescent children, or teens under the age of 18 or under the age of consent which differs in each state....statutory rape, which can be consented to by the teen but is still considered by law, a lesser offense than rape of a prepubescent child, (by pedophiles). and there is an actual rape by force of those children in their teens, which is as grave as any violent rape situation with an adult or even greater in my opinion.

I know my husband said that he lost his virginity as a young teen while under the age of legal consent, by a girl that was about 4 years older than him who was around the age of 18....and to this day, he says he wouldn't have had it any other way....which is pretty messed up to me, but that is what he says?

Would what was done to him by a legal adult female, be one of the cases that you think the perp should be locked up for life or killed for.....?

I suppose I would not, in the cases similar to my husband's case...but if it were my own son....I just don't know how angry I would be....?

I know if it were my daughter at the age of 13-14 and an 18 year old male did this to her I would be pretty angry so I suppose I would be just as angry with this happening to a son....but like I have said above, I can't be so certain.

I guess the bottom line for me, is that a pedophile that raped a child under the age of puberty would and should be treated the same, whether male or female.

But when speaking about statutory rape, where the teen consented to the sex with the adult, it would depend on the actual circumstances of the rape....as one example....whether it was an 18 year old with a 15 year old or a 40 year old with a 15 year old and things like this.....

I still do have a hard time with knowing whether a 20 year old woman can violently rape a 15 year old boy at knifepoint or by mere force, where I know it is feasible for a 20 year old male to do this to a 15 year old girl.

jd

Why is there this illusion that boys cannot be victimized by women. It doesn't take a knife to the neck or a penis to traumatize a kid.

[JohnDoe]

Why is there this illusion that boys cannot be victimized by women. It doesn't take a knife to the neck or a penis to traumatize a kid.
First, sex with teens IS NOT done by a pedophile but a ephebophile....you specifically said pedophile and I responded to this.

A pedophile is someone who sexually abuses a prepubescent child and I believe both male and female perps are equal and should be punished equally.

I do believe as you do that a teen boy can be traumatized as much as a female teen if sex is forced upon them.

What I am uncertain about is whether with a statutory rape, where the teen consented to it, is as harmful to a male as it would be to a female in ALL cases. My husband thinks not, and I can only go with his own experience regarding this.....and I think he seemed to manage it ok??? Would I like it if I were his mother, and at the time it had happened, certainly NOT!

Though states have reformed their age of consent laws, at one time the boy's age of consent was different than the female's age of consent in many states and I believe it was just the opposite of what I would have thought them to be, where I believe it was the girl's age of consent was younger than the male's???? So, what the heck do I know on this???? Nada, aparently!!! :)



jd

[nevadamedic]

Ahhhhhh, the "female vs male" thing... I suppose there is something that could be done medically that could give the same effect, such as a hysterectomy of the ovaries, but not certain on that...? honestly, i am not certain if the crimes are equal when it comes to using force or not, in a rape situation, not a statutory rape but a violent rape.... i am obviously not a male and do not know if they could get it up, if they were being violently raped or not???? if a boner is what would happen regardless... is another story and she should be held to the same standards as the male in a violent rape... again, i am only speculating on this and would need to become more knowledgable of the subject.

jd

So today your playing the female role? It's impossible to keep up........ :laugh2
:

[nevadamedic]

I am not one to say that a male pedophile should be killed, but certainly locked up for near forever and or castrated.

it is known to be a disease that is near incurable....and one that will be repeated if let out of prison.

What I have a hard time knowing is whether a woman can rape a male child, under the age of puberty with intercourse, but she certainly could perform "other" acts on to the male child or female child that would be just as offensive. In these cases, I think that she is just as much an endangerment to the child victimized as the male pedophile would be....and the punishment should be of equal value as the male's imho.

Then there is the cases of ephebophilia, which is the attraction to post pubescent children, or teens under the age of 18 or under the age of consent which differs in each state....statutory rape, which can be consented to by the teen but is still considered by law, a lesser offense than rape of a prepubescent child, (by pedophiles). and there is an actual rape by force of those children in their teens, which is as grave as any violent rape situation with an adult or even greater in my opinion.

I know my husband said that he lost his virginity as a young teen while under the age of legal consent, by a girl that was about 4 years older than him who was around the age of 18....and to this day, he says he wouldn't have had it any other way....which is pretty messed up to me, but that is what he says?

Would what was done to him by a legal adult female, be one of the cases that you think the perp should be locked up for life or killed for.....?

I suppose I would not, in the cases similar to my husband's case...but if it were my own son....I just don't know how angry I would be....?

I know if it were my daughter at the age of 13-14 and an 18 year old male did this to her I would be pretty angry so I suppose I would be just as angry with this happening to a son....but like I have said above, I can't be so certain.

I guess the bottom line for me, is that a pedophile that raped a child under the age of puberty would and should be treated the same, whether male or female.

But when speaking about statutory rape, where the teen consented to the sex with the adult, it would depend on the actual circumstances of the rape....as one example....whether it was an 18 year old with a 15 year old or a 40 year old with a 15 year old and things like this.....

I still do have a hard time with knowing whether a 20 year old woman can violently rape a 15 year old boy at knifepoint or by mere force, where I know it is feasible for a 20 year old male to do this to a 15 year old girl.

jd

If I had a 14 year old son who bagged an 18 year old woman he would have my respect and I would be like that's my boy! On the other hand if my daughter did that I would beat her ass so hard that her grandkids would feel it and then ship her off to an all girls school.

[5stringJeff]

I suppose you could ask these sex offenders if they'd rather live with all the registration and domicile restrictions, or still be in jail. I think I know what they would say.

I don't think it should be based on their preference. It should be based on whether they are still a threat to society. Not a threat: no registration, no domicile restrictions. Threat: jail.

[5stringJeff]

Exactly. I know two different families that have been affected by this. Both of the offenders have been young men, not retarded but sort of dull. Functional, but don't quite understand how some things are not permitted. I don't know if I'm explaining this right or not.

The one was celebrating with a couple of girls, jumping up & down over some good news & he touched the one girl's boob. She didn't report him as she understood; but someone else in the office who saw it, did. He is serving time & will be labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

The other one was just released from prison. A similar situation.

You hate to trivialize any sex offense, but this is what I'm talking about. The victim didn't even report him, but this guy is now labeled for the rest of his life.

[Cheyenne]

If I had a 14 year old son who bagged an 18 year old woman he would have my respect and I would be like that's my boy! On the other hand if my daughter did that I would beat her ass so hard that her grandkids would feel it and then ship her off to an all girls school.

This is exactly the whole point. Just how many young men are forced by girls/women to have sex??? I've discussed this with other men & they say the same thing you do, "Atta' boy!"
By this comment alone it shows that it is psychologically different for men/boys & women/girls. Men who prey upon young girls have a different mentality, more of a predator, more sleazy than those of women who do the same thing.
And most sex offenders are men.

This is not to say that morally one is no different than the other. And dillo does raise a point that boys can be victimized. But I would say that is in rare cases.

[Cheyenne]

You hate to trivialize any sex offense, but this is what I'm talking about. The victim didn't even report him, but this guy is now labeled for the rest of his life.I wouldn't consider what he did a 'sex offense', would you?
Neither would I a man that tells a woman, at work, that she looks exceptionally good would be guilty of sexual harassment, but it happens.

[5stringJeff]

I wouldn't consider what he did a 'sex offense', would you?

The way you described it, no, I wouldn't.


Neither would I a man that tells a woman, at work, that she looks exceptionally good would be guilty of sexual harassment, but it happens.

I tell women this at school often. I've always gotten responses along the lines of 'thanks,' not 'talk to my lawyer, perv!'

[nevadamedic]

This is exactly the whole point. Just how many young men are forced by girls/women to have sex??? I've discussed this with other men & they say the same thing you do, "Atta' boy!"
By this comment alone it shows that it is psychologically different for men/boys & women/girls. Men who prey upon young girls have a different mentality, more of a predator, more sleazy than those of women who do the same thing.
And most sex offenders are men.

This is not to say that morally one is no different than the other. And dillo does raise a point that boys can be victimized. But I would say that is in rare cases.

Men are always on the hunt, we are like a predator in the wild.

As far as the reason it is ok for men to have sex and women not to I can't answer that. Maybe because parents don't want to see their daughter's knocked up? Maybe it is because that's all boys think about from ae 13 and up and women are usually more reserved I don't know but women do et a bad rap.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't think it should be based on their preference. It should be based on whether they are still a threat to society. Not a threat: no registration, no domicile restrictions. Threat: jail.

My point wasn't that they should have a preference. Some people are concerned here about how tough it is for them to live with all the restrictions, and my point is that I would think it is way preferable to jail. This is all based on the belief that these people are incorrigible offenders, and they will rape/molest again and cannot just be let go live free as they wish.

If there are individuals whose offense is too insignificant to warrant sex offender staus, then the offense laws need to be made more narrow and specific; rather than an overhaul of the whole registration/rstircte domicile process.

[Kathianne]

My point wasn't that they should have a preference. Some people are concerned here about how tough it is for them to live with all the restrictions, and my point is that I would think it is way preferable to jail. This is all based on the belief that these people are incorrigible offenders, and they will rape/molest again and cannot just be let go live free as they wish.

If there are individuals whose offense is too insignificant to warrant sex offender staus, then the offense laws need to be made more narrow and specific; rather than an overhaul of the whole registration/rstircte domicile process.

I may be wrong, but I think this has resulted from the 'excessive punishments' prohibited by the Constitution, a real desire to protect the public, and an acknowledgment of the recidivism rate of sex offenders and pedophiles in particular.

[Abbey Marie]

I may be wrong, but I think this has resulted from the 'excessive punishments' prohibited by the Constitution, a real desire to protect the public, and an acknowledgment of the recidivism rate of sex offenders and pedophiles in particular.

That's my impression as well (at least the latter two points).

[nevadamedic]

That's my impression as well (at least the latter two points).

I think crimes like staturtor seduction(like being 18 and being with a 17 year old) and going to the bathroom behind a tree shouldn't be crimes at all let alone sex offenses. Society has gotten so bad this things like this could ruin the rest of someones life.

[Kathianne]

That's my impression as well (at least the latter two points).

First point: Article 8 (wasn't coming to me). ;)

VIII - Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Fondling and many other sex crimes just don't appear to be a life sentence type of crime, yet the 'registration lists' are hoping to appease the problem, while trying to protect the public, especially children.

It's not a good solution, but life sentences?

[Cheyenne]

Men are always on the hunt, we are like a predator in the wild.Yes, but it is the man with Christian principles that has learned how to control himself. And I'm not saying that a man has to be a Christian to not go around humping every woman with a pulse but that some men have learned to triumph over human nature.

..... Maybe because parents don't want to see their daughter's knocked up? Maybe it is because that's all boys think about from ae 13 and up and women are usually more reserved I don't know but women do et a bad rap.Sure, girls/women stand a far greater risk in having sex both physically & psychologically. And yes, a young man thinks of sex all the time, but what man doesn't? We women just have more sense. :wink2:

Young women today need to realize that it is still in their best interest not to indulge in this activity too early or with frequent partners.

[Cheyenne]

.....I tell women this at school often. I've always gotten responses along the lines of 'thanks,' not 'talk to my lawyer, perv!'Could it be the way you deliver your compliment? Like with a smile and not drooling & sneering?

[nevadamedic]

Yes, but it is the man with Christian principles that has learned how to control himself. And I'm not saying that a man has to be a Christian to not go around humping every woman with a pulse but that some men have learned to triumph over human nature.
Sure, girls/women stand a far greater risk in having sex both physically & psychologically. And yes, a young man thinks of sex all the time, but what man doesn't? We women just have more sense. :wink2:

Young women today need to realize that it is still in their best interest not to indulge in this activity too early or with frequent partners.

We just think with the wrong head. Just because your Christian doesn't mean you can control your urges, that's just nuts. Any man that thinks he has control is a liar. Also if God didn't want us to have sex he wouldn't have made it feel so damn good. ;)

[Kathianne]

You hate to trivialize any sex offense, but this is what I'm talking about. The victim didn't even report him, but this guy is now labeled for the rest of his life.

While I disagree that I'd give my 14 year old son kudos, I don't think even my ex would do that, I think that the sex predator tags going onto mostly young males is wrong. Statutory sex offenses by a male over 23, yeah probably, as long as the girl is under 17.

Problem is with something like whatever the charge is for 'peeping Tom' at teen years. Sex between 18 and 16 year olds. To my way of thinking pedophilia comes into play with any child 16 and under, with anyone more than 3 years older. Rape is rape, though when with a child, worse.

Flashers and such, well what to do with them? They have problems, but I don't think it deserves 'life', even kids aren't scarred for life from that. It has high recidivism rate too. Oh well!

[gabosaurus]

Once again, the whole nature of "sex crimes" is being WAY overblown. According to what some of you have been posting, any sexual crime should lead to life imprisonment. But it is OK for more violent offenders to be released.
Like the story that was in the Orange County Register when I was in high school. A guy was convicted of shooting two people, with one dying. I believe it was in Oregon. He was able to plea to a reduced sentence, served 12 years and was released. One of the terms of his release is that he had to leave the state.
He moved to Anaheim, remarried and bought a house. He was not a good neighbor. Some women looked up his past and was surprised that a convicted murderer was living across the street from her. Police told her that he could live where he wanted to.

What the current laws say is that if a guy flashes a kid, he can live virtually nowhere. But a guy who shooting two people and kills one of them can live anywhere.
Doesn't make sense to me.

[Kathianne]

Once again, the whole nature of "sex crimes" is being WAY overblown. According to what some of you have been posting, any sexual crime should lead to life imprisonment. But it is OK for more violent offenders to be released.
Like the story that was in the Orange County Register when I was in high school. A guy was convicted of shooting two people, with one dying. I believe it was in Oregon. He was able to plea to a reduced sentence, served 12 years and was released. One of the terms of his release is that he had to leave the state.
He moved to Anaheim, remarried and bought a house. He was not a good neighbor. Some women looked up his past and was surprised that a convicted murderer was living across the street from her. Police told her that he could live where he wanted to.

What the current laws say is that if a guy flashes a kid, he can live virtually nowhere. But a guy who shooting two people and kills one of them can live anywhere.
Doesn't make sense to me.Gabby, I think you are missing the point of the discussion. I think we are all, including Jeff acknowledging the true danger of rapists, pedophiles. With that said, there is a problem in the registering of all sex offenders, regardless of charge with no relief.

Some 'kid' that is 19 and has sex with a 16 or 17 year old, voluntarily may be charged with rape-for life. No chance of a life with that one. That's wrong.

It's not us missing the differences, it's our legislators.

[5stringJeff]

My point wasn't that they should have a preference. Some people are concerned here about how tough it is for them to live with all the restrictions, and my point is that I would think it is way preferable to jail. This is all based on the belief that these people are incorrigible offenders, and they will rape/molest again and cannot just be let go live free as they wish.

If there are individuals whose offense is too insignificant to warrant sex offender staus, then the offense laws need to be made more narrow and specific; rather than an overhaul of the whole registration/rstircte domicile process.

In relation to the bolded part, that's my question. Is every sex offender incorrigible and just one opportunity from reoffending? I don't think so. Which is why I think that, if they are threats, they should remain in prison, but once they are no longer determined to be threats, they should be treated like any other ex-con.

[5stringJeff]

Could it be the way you deliver your compliment? Like with a smile and not drooling & sneering?

Probably. Plus, I'm such a good-looking guy! :D

[5stringJeff]

[QUOTE=gabosaurus;165830What the current laws say is that if a guy flashes a kid, he can live virtually nowhere. But a guy who shooting two people and kills one of them can live anywhere.
Doesn't make sense to me.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't make sense to me either, Gabby.

[Kathianne]

Probably. Plus, I'm such a good-looking guy! :D

Modest too! :slap: OMG, I think that's 2 slaps in one day! :laugh2:

[5stringJeff]

Modest too! :slap: OMG, I think that's 2 slaps in one day! :laugh2:

:D

[Dilloduck]

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with that particular case. What I'm talking about is level 1 and 2 sex offenders who are judged to have a lower propensity to re-offend. Why are those particular offenders required to register, keep away from schools, etc. when other ex-felons are not?

Possibly because people are more angry or afraid of them then other felons yet the lawmakers haven't devised an appropriate punishment. It reminds me of when we chained the criminally insane to walls in an institution. When effective sedatives and anti-psychotic drugs became available, the "criminally insane" were back in society--many of them living normal lives.
The eagerness to cut the genitals off of offenders is barbaric. We gonna cut off the hands of thieves too?

[JohnDoe]

Possibly because people are more angry or afraid of them then other felons yet the lawmakers haven't devised an appropriate punishment. It reminds me of when we chained the criminally insane to walls in an institution. When effective sedatives and anti-psychotic drugs became available, the "criminally insane" were back in society--many of them living normal lives.
The eagerness to cut the genitals off of offenders is barbaric. We gonna cut off the hands of thieves too?What kind of offender are you speaking about? A repeated pedophile rapist? The nuts should come off in those cases in my opinion. And if memory serves....some pedophiles even have requested it, because they KNOW that they can not stop .

A pedophile is someone who sexual abuses a prepubescent child and from what i have read, in most cases, can not be cured of such desires. Either that or leave them in prison.

I do not think that all sexual predators are the same, as i have tried to explain previously and as most people on this site have also expressed.

jd

[Dilloduck]

What kind of offender are you speaking about? A repeated pedophile rapist? The nuts should come off in those cases in my opinion. And if memory serves....some pedophiles even have requested it, because they KNOW that they can not stop .

A pedophile is someone who sexual abuses a prepubescent child and from what i have read, in most cases, can not be cured of such desires. Either that or leave them in prison.

I do not think that all sexual predators are the same, as i have tried to explain previously and as most people on this site have also expressed.

jd


Why are those particular offenders required to register, keep away from schools, etc. when other ex-felons are not?

This is the operative question I have been attempting to answer. Wanna give it a shot?

[JohnDoe]

This is the operative question I have been attempting to answer. Wanna give it a shot?
Sorry, i guess i misunderstood what you were asking dillo because through alot of stuff in your other posts of which you mentioned convicted pedophiles...and i see pedophilia crimes as a pretty serious offense verses the type of situations that Cheyenne had described.

And if you did not understand what i have posted so far on this subject ALREADY then i will repeat it to you, no i do not think that sex offenders are all the same and those that just flashed someone, or the 18 year old with the 15 year old, etc. are on the same level as a pedophile rapist and should NOT have to register as a sex offender and be restricted from the normal living that anyone after serving their required time in prison. as jeff and many others have pointed out, i do not believe that our system is fair, if this is what is required from them.

jd

[Cheyenne]

We just think with the wrong head. Just because your Christian doesn't mean you can control your urges, that's just nuts. Any man that thinks he has control is a liar. So what you're saying is you have no control?
Any man that doesn't walk out his front door & hump the first woman that walks by, I say has control over his urges. It is to whatever degree that a man has control over these urges that makes him a faithful husband.

Also if God didn't want us to have sex he wouldn't have made it feel so damn good. ;)This has no bearing on what we are talking about.
But as a marriage educator I will advocate sex within a marriage as a vital part of the relationship.

[Dilloduck]

Sorry, i guess i misunderstood what you were asking dillo because through alot of stuff in your other posts of which you mentioned convicted pedophiles...and i see pedophilia crimes as a pretty serious offense verses the type of situations that Cheyenne had described.

And if you did not understand what i have posted so far on this subject ALREADY then i will repeat it to you, no i do not think that sex offenders are all the same and those that just flashed someone, or the 18 year old with the 15 year old, etc. are on the same level as a pedophile rapist and should NOT have to register as a sex offender and be restricted from the normal living that anyone after serving their required time in prison. as jeff and many others have pointed out, i do not believe that our system is fair, if this is what is required from them.

jd

one more time

Why are those particular offenders required to register, keep away from schools, etc. when other ex-felons are not?

The question is " Why are we treating sexual offenders in the manner in which we are ". It is NOT how do you think they SHOULD be treated.

[JohnDoe]

one more time


The question is " Why are we treating sexual offenders in the manner in which we are ". It is NOT how do you think they SHOULD be treated.
ahhhhhhh .... ok!


my answer is : i don't know why on those offenders that have committed minor sexual crimes.

but with pedophile criminals, i believe it is part of their punishment, and for the safety of other children, or possible future victims, ''so they think'', they as in those that wrote the laws and those that support these laws.

but personally, i believe a pedophile rapist, and maybe even a violent rapist, will more than likely, repeat their crimes or other felonies, therefore, i personally would give them harsher punishments, and keep them in jail longer or, snippity snip them.

jd

[diuretic]

..................

Flashers and such, well what to do with them? They have problems, but I don't think it deserves 'life', even kids aren't scarred for life from that. It has high recidivism rate too. Oh well!

No, flashers don't deserve life but I think they're apprentice rapists so they need to be registered as well as punished.

[Kathianne]

No, flashers don't deserve life but I think they're apprentice rapists so they need to be registered as well as punished.

Sometimes and sometimes not. That's the problem. Registry in that case seems a good idea.

[Dilloduck]

Recidivism in criminals is the norm. My take on what Jeff is trying to ask here is, Does the sexual criminal deserve to be marked forever and tatooed with "DEVIATE" on his forehead ? Does the punishment fit the crime ? Is it some hormonal or genetic disorder that drives these offenders to repeat ? If it is why are we not treating it or keeping them locked up until a cure is found? Where is the wisdom in freeing ANY criminal that you know will return to a life a crime?

[Kathianne]

Recidivism in criminals is the norm. My take on what Jeff is trying to ask here is, Does the sexual criminal deserve to be marked forever and tatooed with "DEVIATE" on his forehead ? Does the punishment fit the crime ? Is it some hormonal or genetic disorder that drives these offenders to repeat ? If it is why are we not treating it or keeping them locked up until a cure is found? Where is the wisdom in freeing ANY criminal that you know will return to a life a crime?

That's not true dillo, well not at the same rates anyways:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism





Recidivism

* Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
* The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
* Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
* Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
* Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

[Dilloduck]

That's not true dillo, well not at the same rates anyways:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

So what ?

http://www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/r_o_p_e1.htm

[Kathianne]

So what ?

In regards to what Jeff wrote about having to register. While some of the crimes seem to justify lower sentences, because the victims are not dead or disabled, the chances of them committing another violent act are high.

Abbey and I were earlier discussing that while we agree with the violent ones and those that target children, there are many caught up today with the 'name' of sex offender, who probably earned such in teens/early 20's and carry that stigma now to the grave.

[Dilloduck]

In regards to what Jeff wrote about having to register. While some of the crimes seem to justify lower sentences, because the victims are not dead or disabled, the chances of them committing another violent act are high.

Abbey and I were earlier discussing that while we agree with the violent ones and those that target children, there are many caught up today with the 'name' of sex offender, who probably earned such in teens/early 20's and carry that stigma now to the grave.

I'll ask AGAIN. Why are sexual offenders treated any differently than any other felon when they are released from prison ? Are murderers required to live any distiance from people? Are robbers required to live a certain istance from banks ? Can you go to a web page and find out where all those convicted of a crime live in relation to you?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200609/ai_n17194955

[Dilloduck]

or malpractice ??
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/medmal/articles.cfm?ID=8308

[Kathianne]

I'll ask AGAIN. Why are sexual offenders treated any differently than any other felon when they are released from prison ? Are murderers required to live any distiance from people? Are robbers required to live a certain istance from banks ? Can you go to a web page and find out where all those convicted of a crime live in relation to you?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200609/ai_n17194955

I've answered a couple times now, you don't like it, fine.

[Dilloduck]

I've answered a couple times now, you don't like it, fine.

Where?

[5stringJeff]

I'll ask AGAIN. Why are sexual offenders treated any differently than any other felon when they are released from prison ? Are murderers required to live any distiance from people? Are robbers required to live a certain istance from banks ? Can you go to a web page and find out where all those convicted of a crime live in relation to you?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200609/ai_n17194955

That's essentially my point. There are two "classes" of ex-cons: sex offenders and all the rest. Only sex offenders are required to register, have restrictions on domiciles, etc.

[nevadamedic]

That's essentially my point. There are two "classes" of ex-cons: sex offenders and all the rest. Only sex offenders are required to register, have restrictions on domiciles, etc.

In most states Felons are required to register as well and carry an Ex-Felon card with them where ever they go.

[Dilloduck]

I have my suspicions that we have different classes of felons because there is some thought that the behavior may be the results of genetic or physical abnormality or condition. Treating people like they "can't help it" if ya know what I mean. "Treatment doesn't work" and "they were born that way" sound uncomfortably familiar.

[Abbey Marie]

I'll ask AGAIN. Why are sexual offenders treated any differently than any other felon when they are released from prison ? Are murderers required to live any distiance from people? Are robbers required to live a certain istance from banks ? Can you go to a web page and find out where all those convicted of a crime live in relation to you?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200609/ai_n17194955

If you look closely at the article, it says that of those who committed violent felonies, only "15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony." The rest who were recidivist committed other non-violent felonies.
I wonder what the percentage is for repeat sexual offenses? I am betting it is way higher than 15%.

As I said, if the particular sex offense is not serious, as were some examples given, then they should be treated differently from the more serious ones. Just because the laws aren't perfect, doesn't mean we should throw the baby put with the bath water.

[Cheyenne]

.....
As I said, if the particular sex offense is not serious, as were some examples given, then they should be treated differently from the more serious ones. Just because the laws aren't perfect, doesn't mean we should throw the baby put with the bath water.That is why I think these smaller 'offenses' should be judged case by case.

[manu1959]

if you get caught peeing in public....you must register as a sex offender and you go into the data base....

[Dilloduck]

If you look closely at the article, it says that of those who committed violent felonies, only "15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony." The rest who were recidivist committed other non-violent felonies.
I wonder what the percentage is for repeat sexual offenses? I am betting it is way higher than 15%.

As I said, if the particular sex offense is not serious, as were some examples given, then they should be treated differently from the more serious ones. Just because the laws aren't perfect, doesn't mean we should throw the baby put with the bath water.

I haven't suggested any change be made. I'm thinking about the question posed by Jeff. I think it says something about us as a society. It might be interesting to see just what it is.

[Abbey Marie]

I haven't suggested any change be made. I'm thinking about the question posed by Jeff. I think it says something about us as a society. It might be interesting to see just what it is.

It would be interesting. What do you think it says? And as a corollary to that, do you think that men can fully understand the effects of a violent rape (redundancy alert) on a woman's emotional/mental state?

[manu1959]

It would be interesting. What do you think it says? And as a corollary to that, do you think that men can fully understand the effects of a violent rape (redundancy alert) on a woman's emotional/mental state?

men that have been raped can and men that have had loved ones raped can....

[Abbey Marie]

men that have been raped can and men that have had loved ones raped can....

I'm not so sure about the loved ones. Maybe the ones who are actually raped can. But it's not something that can ever be proved.

[nevadamedic]

I'm not so sure about the loved ones. Maybe the ones who are actually raped can. But it's not something that can ever be proved.

Loved ones can definantly understand the full effect of someone who has been raped, if only by reading the victims emotions and the details of what happened.

[Abbey Marie]

Loved ones can definantly understand the full effect of someone who has been raped, if only by reading the victims emotions and the details of what happened.

As bad as it is, it's bad in a different way. How can anyone know unless they have been raped?

[Dilloduck]

It would be interesting. What do you think it says? And as a corollary to that, do you think that men can fully understand the effects of a violent rape (redundancy alert) on a woman's emotional/mental state?

As controversial as it will be, I think it says a lot about how confused our society is about sex. Look how easily some are willing to use surgical techniques to alter behavior. Is that a direction we really want to go? We tried the same thing when we lobotmized the insane. When and how will we decide the scale from sexually appropriate behavior to the criminally deviate ?
Why DO we allow sexual offenders to leave prison yet we are so afraid of them repeating the crime that we so restrict their behavior that we may as well have kept them in prison.

Abortion, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, etc etc.
I think we're a pretty confused bunch and "thank you" Jeff for the interesting question.

[nevadamedic]

As bad as it is, it's bad in a different way. How can anyone know unless they have been raped?

Yes you can.................

[5stringJeff]

As controversial as it will be, I think it says a lot about how confused our society is about sex. Look how easily some are willing to use surgical techniques to alter behavior. Is that a direction we really want to go? We tried the same thing when we lobotmized the insane. When and how will we decide the scale from sexually appropriate behavior to the criminally deviate ?
Why DO we allow sexual offenders to leave prison yet we are so afraid of them repeating the crime that we so restrict their behavior that we may as well have kept them in prison.

Abortion, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, etc etc.
I think we're a pretty confused bunch and "thank you" Jeff for the interesting question.

Dillo, I think you're right. My original post had to do with the inequality between sex offenders and non-sex offenders when they are released from prison. But you and Abbey bring up a more basic question: what ought we do with sex offenders in the first place, and why is there such a stigma attached to sexual crimes?

I certainly don't have any definitive answers, and probably more questions. But for starters, I think we can, and ought, to differentiate between an offense that has sexual overtones that isn't necessarily "sexual," like Cheyenne's story about someone who accidentally grabbed a girl's breast, and is now a "sex offender." That's way different than, say, a child rapist. Obviously, a more heinous crime deserves a longer jail sentence.

The second way we should differentiate is likelihood of reoffending. As I understand it (and I may be wrong) that's what the "levels" of sex offenders are: level 1 means you likely won't reoffend, and level 3 means you likely will. In my book, the higher a likelihood to reoffend, the longer the jail time should be.

Now, combining those two is where it gets tricky. A level 1 flasher (e.g. someone who was drunk and flashed a girl at a bar) obviously doesn't need much jail time, and certainly doesn't need to deal with the registration BS. And a level 3 rapist, obviously, ought not be freed for decades, if ever. But what about a level 1 rapist? Or a "level 3" who was convicted of having consensual sex with a 17 year old, when he thinks it should be legal and sees nothing wrong with it?

Who knows... maybe I'm just rambling. Something just doesn't seem right about it all.

[5stringJeff]

As bad as it is, it's bad in a different way. How can anyone know unless they have been raped?

That's a great question. I've known three women in my life who have been victims of sexual assault, and they've all got emotional scars from it that I don't understand, and probably can't.

[JohnDoe]

As controversial as it will be, I think it says a lot about how confused our society is about sex. Look how easily some are willing to use surgical techniques to alter behavior. Is that a direction we really want to go? We tried the same thing when we lobotmized the insane. When and how will we decide the scale from sexually appropriate behavior to the criminally deviate ?
Why DO we allow sexual offenders to leave prison yet we are so afraid of them repeating the crime that we so restrict their behavior that we may as well have kept them in prison.

Abortion, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, etc etc.
I think we're a pretty confused bunch and "thank you" Jeff for the interesting question.

I think it is perfectly logical to castrate a REPEATED pedophile rapist or as I said, lock him up forever :) I don't think any guy that continually harms 6 year old girls by raping them, having intercourse with them belong in society.

And wasn't it YOU that felt it was fine to kill two unarmed burglars of a neighbor for stealing? Which isn't physically harming ANYONE, unlike a pedophile rapist who is forcing sex/intercourse upon a child under the age of 10 years old?

And it has been studied and is a known fact that a repeated offender of pedophilia is more likely than not, to go after and harm both mentally and physically again, another young child for their own diviant and distorted sexual pleasure? Castrate them if you can't keep them locked up... yep, I will stick to that....and i did not come to this conclusion quickly or lightly.

jd

[Dilloduck]

I think it is perfectly logical to castrate a REPEATED pedophile rapist or as I said, lock him up forever :) I don't think any guy that continually harms 6 year old girls by raping them, having intercourse with them belong in society.

And wasn't it YOU that felt it was fine to kill two unarmed burglars of a neighbor for stealing? Which isn't physically harming ANYONE, unlike a pedophile rapist who is forcing sex/intercourse upon a child under the age of 10 years old?

And it has been studied and is a known fact that a repeated offender of pedophilia is more likely than not, to go after and harm both mentally and physically again, another young child for their own diviant and distorted sexual pleasure? Castrate them if you can't keep them locked up... yep, I will stick to that....and i did not come to this conclusion quickly or lightly.

jd

Physical harm takes precedent over psychological harm? How is that measured? How about declitorizing female teachers who screw their students?

[Abbey Marie]

Yes you can.................

Actually, that kind of adds to my point. People think they know, but they probably don't.

[Abbey Marie]

That's a great question. I've known three women in my life who have been victims of sexual assault, and they've all got emotional scars from it that I don't understand, and probably can't.

That's how I see it, Jeff. There are things that have long term inner effects that we cannot really know unless we've experienced them. Like the regret so many women after having an abortion. But that's another thread.

[JohnDoe]

Physical harm takes precedent over psychological harm? How is that measured? How about declitorizing female teachers who screw their students?
I realize that castration sounds harsh, and that it is harsh. I see it as a last resort, life in prison for a repeated pedophile rapist is my preference. I am not suggesting those men that are locked up for this crime be castrated. Prison is where they belong.

But IF for some reason, the system fails us and a repeated pedophile rapist is being released back in to society, I do not think that registering in a community or keeping them from living in a range of a school is going to stop them from recommitting this crime, based on all that I have read on the subject or viewed on the subject. If there is a way to chemically "fix" them, then I would choose that option over a physical castration.

I would even give the repeated pedophile the option of life in prison or castration and being out of jail....being free.

Maybe one of the radio/ankle bracelet is another way to keep them from doing this again, and castration is not needed, but I am uncertain on how well that would work?

In some states, I believe it is Louisianna, they have added violent Rape to their list of crimes that can warrent the death penalty. I think this is too harsh, harsher than castration for a repeated pedophile.

I think I feel so strongly on this subject because I have a relative, through marriage, who was repeatedly raped as a child, when she was 4-8 years old. Her life is totally messed up and has always been messed up, and every family member around her have been affected by her screwed up life. And her friends have been messed up by staying friends with her and trying to help her, and anyone that has come in to contact with her, has been affected by her actions....she is now 48 years old and nothing has changed.

For a long time, she completely blocked out most all memories of being raped and it wasn't until she was around 28 that the memories moved from her subconscious to her conscious memory....partly becasue she was told what happened to her by another relative that had witnessed it and was also abused...there was hope that this could help her get out of her drug ridden and alcohol and crime driven life, but it didn't.... I see no hope of it ever changing.

Pedophilia is not a crime of passion or a robbery or even a kidnapping that can be overcome by the victim. It is a horrible crime and affects not only the victims but all who love them and surround them and come in contact with them.

Thus, castration of the repeated pedophile is justified imo, if they are put back in to society, so that they will NEVER commit this crime again. yes it is harsh, but i have good reasons to feel this way.
-----------------------------------------------------------

As far as your other question of your post above, I don't know what you mean by your question/statement on physical harm vs mental harm.

If they are female teachers that are having sex with their post pubescent students, it is NOT the same crime and it is not pedophilia, so no they should not be declitorized.

jd

[5stringJeff]

I would even give the repeated pedophile the option of life in prison or castration and being out of jail....being free.

Are you serious? You do realize that castration means cutting off the testicles, and not the penis, so the rapist would still be able to rape again, right?

[eighballsidepocket]

I totally agree. And it irritates me to no end.
If a person is convicted of ONE sex crime, no matter how severe or minor, he/she is forced to register and demoted to less than human. But the same person can be convicted countless times of DUI/DWI and not even serve prison time.
I know most will disagree with me, but I would MUCH rather live by a guy who looks at porn than a person who drives drunk. How many kids are killed by pedophiles, compared to those who are killed by drunks?

The problem is that our society is way too puritanical. The alcohol industry has a huge lobby. Tons of DWI lawyers advertise their services. When was the last time you saw a huge ad for a lawyer who defends sex offenders?
The celebs who drive drunk hire top dollar attorneys to get them off. The ones who get involved in sex scandals are often ruined forever.

It's time for society to stop being hypocritical. If the dude who shot two people, served his time and then got released can live next to you, why can't the person who had kiddie porn on computer do the same?

I find your points very interesting. Especially about the dui/dwi multiple offenders........They call the sex offender's problem an addiction of sorts, yet the DUI/DWI offender is often an addict of alcohol, or other control substances, and they have the potential with an automobile to main and kill innocent lives.

Please don't take this as my advocating it, but with male sex offenders, would Neutering or castrating the offender end that mental quirk or uncontrolled sex drive that leads to crimes against society?

In the bible days they had folks called Eunochs, who could be trusted by the King around his harems, cause he was, castrated. Was it a fool proof answer?

[trobinett]

I find your points very interesting. Especially about the dui/dwi multiple offenders........They call the sex offender's problem an addiction of sorts, yet the DUI/DWI offender is often an addict of alcohol, or other control substances, and they have the potential with an automobile to main and kill innocent lives.

Please don't take this as my advocating it, but with male sex offenders, would Neutering or castrating the offender end that mental quirk or uncontrolled sex drive that leads to crimes against society?

In the bible days they had folks called Eunochs, who could be trusted by the King around his harems, cause he was, castrated. Was it a fool proof answer?

No, NOTHING is fool proof.

We are ALWAYS going to be saddled with freaks, misfits, malcontents, and those that otherwise are a blister on the ass of mankind, don't know what the answer is, but, allowing them access to our children sure the fuck isn't the answer.

:slap:

[actsnoblemartin]

No, NOTHING is fool proof.

We are ALWAYS going to be saddled with freaks, misfits, malcontents, and those that otherwise are a blister on the ass of mankind, don't know what the answer is, but, allowing them access to our children sure the fuck isn't the answer.

:slap:

aww. talking about san francisco are we :laugh2:

[waterrescuedude2000]

#1) I believe two states have the death penalty for child rapists Texas and Louisiana.
#2) If you castrate them and chop off the tool... They can still use fingers and tongues.. But I do think that castration should be done anyways. Maybe the pain of it would be enough to deter them????
#3) I think that sex offenders should be tried on a federal level and not state and I think that it should be a federal mandatory punishment for these bastards.
Screw the lethal injection. Put them in a oil vat and fry them like french fries. Thats what they deserve. Screw cruel and unusual punishment. Think of the victims not the rights of the offenders.