BF2S Forums Sex Offender List

mikkel wrote:

Ty wrote:

Mikkel, courts don't apply statutory rape laws if the "offender" is close in age to the "victim". The law takes the purpose of acts in mind, and statutory rape acts are put in place to prevent older people from taking advantage of younger people, not to punish people who are of similar ages who had sex when one was a little underage. In a case such as your 17/18 year old example no-one would be charged.

That's how it should be, but it's not how it is. There have been countless examples of young people being convicted of statutory rape by having consensual sex with a partner less than two years younger than them.

Really? Name three.
Someone being charged in those circumstances would be very rare. The law is not just about the law and the letter, the most important factor is equity.

Turquoise wrote:

I'm against this registration unless we instead create a registration of all murderers, sex offenders, rapists, and corporate criminals.  Only then would this idea be consistent in its execution.

With the current situation, we are just demonstrating our dysfunctional attitudes toward sexuality.

I concur.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm against this registration unless we instead create a registration of all murderers, sex offenders, rapists, and corporate criminals.  Only then would this idea be consistent in its execution.

With the current situation, we are just demonstrating our dysfunctional attitudes toward sexuality.

I concur.

Same here.

SenorToenails wrote:

mikkel wrote:

If genes have any impact on behaviour, I'd rather have potential child molesters running around than people wanting to cut parts of me off for any transgression of laws or customs. Sorry.

I agree.  I don't know how anyone can advocate lobotomies and penectomies and actually be serious.

One-two to the gut! Ouch.

Paedophilia is like homosexuality. It's a genetic condition, you can't simply 'reform' them. Those who can hold back their urges I have no problem with, but the ones who give in and travel to Southeast Asian countries to rape young girls and boys will not be persuaded to stop when administered conventional fines and jailtimes. They cannot be stopped unless drastic action is taken to remove their incentive to commit these atrocities.

A few months ago, in Malaysia, an 8 year old girl was abducted and found several days later dead in a gym bag. She was sexually abused and murdered without remorse.

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

And now, just 2 days ago, another girl has been abducted. I have no doubt that what happened to Nurin is happening to her right now, and if the police doesn't find her soon, all hope will be lost.

These people strike time and time again, ruining the lives and futures of perfectly innocent young ones. Do you honestly think registration, fines, jailtime, caning or any conventional legal action short of the death penalty will stop them?

DesertFox- wrote:

For nearly any other crime after you've paid your debt to society, you get to go home and you could move to a new area and start pretty much a whole new life. However, in this instance, wherever you go you are marked because of your past. Doesn't there seem to be a bit of a double standard here? It's done because there are children present in nearly all neighborhoods, right? Well isn't the car thief in a similar situation because they can be tempted just as easily to repeat those crimes? I by no means sanction any of this criminal behavior, but is it fair to mark these people after they've served their time?

I believe all sex offenders need to register just because they move to a different state and start and new life with new people does not mean that could never happen again.

I would like to know of the criminals in my neighborhood especially if I live in the suburbs and I let me 13 year old child go outside to the park knowing that there is a sex offender out in the neighborhood I did not know about.

If he or she was to register I would know.

Just the element of attraction pedos have isn't a crime, Its just attraction, but once they turn into rapists/murderers then its a problem.

Everyone gets really offended when child molesters are brought up because there are kids involved. even know it makes the crime worse I think they should be treated as rapists first and foremost and then thought of as a pedophile.

Tetrino wrote:

Homosexuality is not a crime as long as the homosexuals don't go out in packs to drug and rape people.

The police are doing the very best that I believe they are capable of doing. Considering the similarities in both cases, in which the girls were seen being pulled into cars, I believe that the perpetrators are one and the same.

The prevention is in the punishment. Once a child rapist has been caught, tried, convicted and castrated, it will encourage other paedophiles to hold back their urges so as to not get their wangs chopped off.

Question:  Do you have proof of pedophilia being a genetic disorder?  (Or homosexuality for that matter?)  You stated that very matter-of-factly in another post.

Castration and lobotomy are cruel and inhumane.  If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say.  Thank god my country has the 8th amendment.

DesertFox- wrote:

For nearly any other crime after you've paid your debt to society, you get to go home and you could move to a new area and start pretty much a whole new life. However, in this instance, wherever you go you are marked because of your past. Doesn't there seem to be a bit of a double standard here? It's done because there are children present in nearly all neighborhoods, right? Well isn't the car thief in a similar situation because they can be tempted just as easily to repeat those crimes? I by no means sanction any of this criminal behavior, but is it fair to mark these people after they've served their time?

I support sex offender registration for sex crimes in which there was a victim.

A 16 year old having sex with her 18 year old boy friend does not render a victim.

I will go as far as to say that a 16 year old boy having sex with his 22 year old teacher also does not render a victim. The reverse however does, young women are far more vulnerable than young men and can easily be manipulated and impressionable. This is something that can be taken advantage off by an unscrupulous older man. It is a double standard that I acknowledge and bow to. Stick to human nature and strip away all Political Correctness, you know I am right.


Child molestation, rape, peeping toms, perverts in the park etc.........these crimes have victims.


I am braced for the inevitable.

Ty wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Ty wrote:

Mikkel, courts don't apply statutory rape laws if the "offender" is close in age to the "victim". The law takes the purpose of acts in mind, and statutory rape acts are put in place to prevent older people from taking advantage of younger people, not to punish people who are of similar ages who had sex when one was a little underage. In a case such as your 17/18 year old example no-one would be charged.

That's how it should be, but it's not how it is. There have been countless examples of young people being convicted of statutory rape by having consensual sex with a partner less than two years younger than them.

Really? Name three.
Someone being charged in those circumstances would be very rare. The law is not just about the law and the letter, the most important factor is equity.

Well, refer to the case of Genarlow Wilson, and all the other cases that you read an article or two about before the media forgets it, and then all the cases where the "rapist" isn't a high school football star or related to anyone prominent enough to highlight their cases.

Googling this yields a fuckton of irrelevant links, as would be expected, so I'm not going to sift through these to find three cases with enough media coverage to get on even the first ten pages of the results, but to give you an example, the state of Georgia supposedly has over 1100 kids locked up as sex offenders. I'm willing to bet that a not insignificant part of these are in there on statutory rape charges from fully consensual sex.

I'm as well aware of how law should be applied as you are, but I think that we can both agree that these ideals aren't always applied with sentencing by all judges.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

I bet all the people that are sympathetic to these pedophiles would change their tunes... if they came home and found out their little sister or brother had been fucked or sodomized by some 45 year old down the street...  I don't think the molesters should be beaten or abused... and once they have done their time... they are free...   But i am very glad they have watchdogs out there to keep an eye on these people...

I just went to the watchdog site that kmarion posted
http://www.familywatchdog.us/Search.asp
and there are a bunch of offenders living in proximity to my house... one offender of children is 3 streets away...  I would kill anyone that messed with my niece or nepwhew...  I will not let anyone hurt them...

I bet all the people supportive of these lists would change their tunes if they faced some bullshit charge that landed them on one of them, and consequently found themselves antagonised and fearing violence and death.

Your criminal record is a highly confidential thing. What other crimes plaster the details of it all over public sites? Again, you could have a child -murderer- living next door, but you wouldn't know about it, and people don't seem to be complaining about that. These lists are completely irrational, and while I can understand why some parents would be irrational about this, the law is meant to keep people from doing irrational things.

Amusing sidenote: Certain states actually require convicted sex offenders to pay an annual registration fee of upwards of $250 for the privilege of being on a sex offenders list.

Bullshit charge...? the people on the lists have been convicted... like i said... I don't advocate violence towards the people that ruin kids lives...
I do advocate keeping track of where these sick individuals are... 

Please explain why these people should not be monitored after fucking up a kid for the rest of their lives?

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Bullshit charge...? the people on the lists have been convicted... like i said... I don't advocate violence towards the people that ruin kids lives...
I do advocate keeping track of where these sick individuals are... 

Please explain why these people should not be monitored after fucking up a kid for the rest of their lives?

Yes, bullshit charge like being convicted as a sex offender at 17 by having sex with a fifteen year old, as we've seen recently, or being convicted of rape because some woman you wound up in bed with changed her mind in the act.

The judicial system is not perfect, and you have to take that into account when measuring the consequences unlawful behaviour. If it's your opinion that people should be monitored for "fucking up kids", then please explain to me why murderers shouldn't be monitored. I'm fairly sure that most people would rather endure a rape than a murder. One leaves you with options, the other doesn't. Somehow murderers aren't seen as a threat on the same level. Irrational, illogical, and thoroughly irresponsible legislation.

T.Pike wrote:

KILLSWITCH wrote:

Yes.

Once a paedophile always a paedophile.  A car thief can be 'reformed'.

^^^ QFT

If you touch a child once you're going to do it again.

Kill 'em after the first time and we won't have anymore repeat offenders.

The next time you get heavily intoxicated, let me know, and I'll throw a scantily clad 16 year old in there with you. If you touch her, you're going to touch other kids, so let's just kill you straight away, yeah?

Varegg wrote:

Paedophiles have what you can call a genetic thing for children just as Homosexuals have a thing for their own gender and just like most boys and girls have a thing for the opposite gender.

For a paedophile its natural to try to have sex with minors because thats who they are ... a car theif, a robber even a rapist doesn't have these genetic needs so they can be reformed, not often sucessful but thats another discussion ...

So why bother putting paedophiles on a list, 1st offence should be jail for life since they will never ever be even close to being reformed ...

Where are you guys getting this "genetic condition" bullshit from?  There is no evidence to draw that conclusion from.

SenorToenails wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Paedophiles have what you can call a genetic thing for children just as Homosexuals have a thing for their own gender and just like most boys and girls have a thing for the opposite gender.

For a paedophile its natural to try to have sex with minors because thats who they are ... a car theif, a robber even a rapist doesn't have these genetic needs so they can be reformed, not often sucessful but thats another discussion ...

So why bother putting paedophiles on a list, 1st offence should be jail for life since they will never ever be even close to being reformed ...

Where are you guys getting this "genetic condition" bullshit from?  There is no evidence to draw that conclusion from.

From research actually and from what we call beyond reasonable doubt ...

Research: I have no online sources for you but it is research on the issue ...

Beyond reasonable doubt: Almost all convicted paedophiles have more than just 1 offence on their record, and those with just 1 will get more convictions

Have you any sources that tells you different ? ... you must have seing as you so eagerly state otherwise.