Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Do you support sex offender registration?

Yes68%68% - 77
No15%15% - 17
Only in certain cases16%16% - 19
Total: 113
2008-01-13 04:46:46
mikkel
Member
+383|7025

KILLSWITCH wrote:

mikkel wrote:

T.Pike wrote:

^^^ 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?
The law needs to use it's discretion in cases like that.  I'm talking about blatant paedophiles, the ones who touch up 10 year olds.
Then it isn't "if you touch a child once you're going to do it again", as you said, but a more complex issue. The law always needs to be exercised with the spirit of the law in mind, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of abuse, and what you seem to be suggesting is legislation that would make what was previously a misdemeanor a serious crime with a scope of sentencing ranging from a warning to a death sentence. That seems far-fetched for a reason.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-01-13 04:47:53)

2008-01-13 05:48:06
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6554|North Tonawanda, NY

Varegg wrote:

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.
Give me some journal references then.  You, and others, state that there is genetic evidence.  You are the one making an assertion that there is evidence, and it is up to you to show it.

See here.
See here.

There really is no evidence that proves a genetic link.  Perhaps some of this suggests that, or whatever, but no definitive accepted link.  You might as well use phrenology to find your evidence.

I never contested the pedophiles often repeat offend.  In fact, each of my posts asks where the proof is for the "genetic condition" bullshit, and not one questions repeat offenses.
2008-01-13 10:43:46
ReTox
Member
+100|6923|State of RETOXification

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.
I rarely say this but... you really have no fucking idea what you are on about.

1) "... as long as the homosexuals don't go out in packs to drug and rape people"

OK doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, white, brown, black (feel the vibrations!) if you do that it is a crime.  You sexual preference has FUCK ALL TO DO WITH IT.  And reading that sentence tells me you think homosexuality is a crime "as long as" you read it correctly.


2) Castration

Castration doesn't even work because the sex is secondary to most of these sick fucks, it's the rush of power that compels them to do what they do.  Besides, what do you want to do to the women that do this as well?  Oh oh, guess we forgot about them didn't we?
2008-01-13 12:08:30
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7234|Nårvei

SenorToenails wrote:

Varegg wrote:

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.
Give me some journal references then.  You, and others, state that there is genetic evidence.  You are the one making an assertion that there is evidence, and it is up to you to show it.

See here.
See here.

There really is no evidence that proves a genetic link.  Perhaps some of this suggests that, or whatever, but no definitive accepted link.  You might as well use phrenology to find your evidence.

I never contested the pedophiles often repeat offend.  In fact, each of my posts asks where the proof is for the "genetic condition" bullshit, and not one questions repeat offenses.
Those links you provided just shows my opinion more clearly, i can infact use them to back up my original statement - the first link show the misconception of paedophiles being mental cases and i have never stated otherwise because i said its equally normal for paedophiles to have sex with minors as it is for normal people to be attracted to other normal people (read boy meats girls and by this i dont call homosexuals not normal) thus making it more  a genetic condition.

Last edited by Varegg (2008-01-13 12:08:58)

Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-01-13 12:22:17
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6554|North Tonawanda, NY

Varegg wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Varegg wrote:

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.
Give me some journal references then.  You, and others, state that there is genetic evidence.  You are the one making an assertion that there is evidence, and it is up to you to show it.

See here.
See here.

There really is no evidence that proves a genetic link.  Perhaps some of this suggests that, or whatever, but no definitive accepted link.  You might as well use phrenology to find your evidence.

I never contested the pedophiles often repeat offend.  In fact, each of my posts asks where the proof is for the "genetic condition" bullshit, and not one questions repeat offenses.
Those links you provided just shows my opinion more clearly, i can infact use them to back up my original statement - the first link show the misconception of paedophiles being mental cases and i have never stated otherwise because i said its equally normal for paedophiles to have sex with minors as it is for normal people to be attracted to other normal people (read boy meats girls and by this i dont call homosexuals not normal) thus making it more  a genetic condition.
No, the first one says that there is no evidence that it is a mental disease or that it is genetic.  Reread it.  And the second says that there is no evidence that pedophilia is genetic, and very little that may suggest homosexuality is.

Where is that research you talk about?  Conjecture does not cut it.
2008-01-13 13:37:21
xxx.B(+)mber
Member
+4|6378|Chicago, IL

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?
In my opinion the law looks at Children and Vehicles at a different level. Children are humans, vehicles are a machine. Its in the nature of man to look over the younger generation.  However I do believe that the laws in sex offender registration should be tweeked a little bit. For example, a guy/girl that likes to go around fondling kids, or likes to have sexual contact with young children who dont know whats going on should always be documented for a family to know the dangers living around them. However I think that if there is a legitiment relationship involved with a minor (lets say 16 vs 21) and an adult shouldn't be prosecuted as a sexual offender.

**EDIT btw in my state of illinois, I think statitory rape counts as a sexual offender

Last edited by xxx.B(+)mber (2008-01-13 14:58:29)

2008-01-13 14:39:43
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6554|North Tonawanda, NY
https://img244.imageshack.us/img244/4275/thinkofthechildrenmg7.png

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard