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?
Poll
Do you support sex offender registration?
| Yes | 68% | 68% - 77 | ||||
| No | 15% | 15% - 17 | ||||
| Only in certain cases | 16% | 16% - 19 | ||||
| Total: 113 | ||||||
I think the title should stay with you for X amount of time during which you are evaluated mentally. If you don't have any other mental factors, you just screwed up, the title can disapear, and not be used against you for discrimination purposes. However, should you commit another crime, the punishment will be very severe. I support the label for the really fucked up people out there, but not for those that don't seem likely to commit it again. I've heard Prison is pretty rough on Child abusers...
Yes, vehicles can be replaced, innocence cannot.
why even release them in the first place?{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Yes, vehicles can be replaced, innocence cannot.
The only way I can see these lists existing is as part of a parole agreement. Convicted sex offenders would choose between serving their full term, or being parolled and being put on a sex offenders list for the duration of the parole.
As far as I'm concerned, once you've paid your debt to society, you're free to do whatever the hell you want, and it should be up to you whether or not people would know of your past.
As far as I'm concerned, once you've paid your debt to society, you're free to do whatever the hell you want, and it should be up to you whether or not people would know of your past.
Hey, dismembered limbs can't really be replaced yet, but there's not a "dismemberer list". Lives can't really be replaced either, but there aren't "murderer lists". These lists are a result of scaremongering, and have served to instigate mob violence in the past. People have been murdered simply for being on them.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Yes, vehicles can be replaced, innocence cannot.
GOOD!!!!mikkel wrote:
People have been murdered simply for being on them.
Last edited by SgtSlauther (2008-01-12 19:13:36)
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.
With the current situation, we are just demonstrating our dysfunctional attitudes toward sexuality.
I attended a Real Estate seminar last Friday. They advised us to not discriminate against registered sexual predators when showing homes to potential buyers. This is not because we have no ethics. But telling someone that the house should not be bought because of a nearby sex offender makes you liable. You could be steering them into the middle of a block with 4 or 5 sex offenders. They just haven't been caught yet. We can tell them how to find out the information, but that's as far as we should go.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Property can be returned. Assholes can't be unraped.
Interesting... personally, I think you should be allowed to tell them. If we're going to release information, we should be able to use it for all logical purposes.Kmarion wrote:
I attended a Real Estate seminar last Friday. They advised us to not discriminate against registered sexual predators when showing homes to potential buyers. This is not because we have no ethics. But telling someone that the house should not be bought because of a nearby sex offender makes you liable. You could be steering them into the middle of a block with 4 or 5 sex offenders. They just haven't been caught yet. We can tell them how to find out the information, but that's as far as we should go.
I support sex offender castration. Stops them from doing what they do and removes their horny personalities from the gene pool.
It's just ruining of a life entirely... If they screwed up, why keep emphasizing it? They were punished, you can bet your ass, but they deserve a second chance. Turquoise is absolutely right - this is an unfair double standarad.
-konfusion
-konfusion
It depends, if you rape a kid you should be murdered. But the whole "youre on the sex offender list because you were 18 and she was 16" is bullshit. You dont get on a list for murdering someone, so you shouldnt for sex offenses, unless you raped someone underage or are mentally unstable.
Yeah, there's nothing like an 18 year old kid having to fear death because sex with a 17 year old girl constituted statutory rape and got him on a sex offenders list. The person had paid his debt to society. It takes a massive idiot to say that killing him is "GOOD!!!!", and a congregation of likeminded idiots to actually carry it out. What's frightening is that people like that aren't as few and far between as they should be.SgtSlauther wrote:
GOOD!!!!mikkel wrote:
People have been murdered simply for being on them.
I actually agree with DragonClaw on thismikkel wrote:
Yeah, there's nothing like an 18 year old kid having to fear death because sex with a 17 year old girl constituted statutory rape and got him on a sex offenders list. The person had paid his debt to society. It takes a massive idiot to say that killing him is "GOOD!!!!", and a congregation of likeminded idiots to actually carry it out. What's frightening is that people like that aren't as few and far between as they should be.SgtSlauther wrote:
GOOD!!!!mikkel wrote:
People have been murdered simply for being on them.
Dragonclaw wrote:
It depends, if you rape a kid you should be murdered. But the whole "youre on the sex offender list because you were 18 and she was 16" is bullshit.
Yeah, and anyone who assaults someone should have their hands cut off so they can't do it again!Tetrino wrote:
I support sex offender castration. Stops them from doing what they do and removes their horny personalities from the gene pool.
Go home, Hammurabi.
"I remove his weapons.... Both of them."Tetrino wrote:
I support sex offender castration. Stops them from doing what they do and removes their horny personalities from the gene pool.
Sin City.
When it comes to assault, you don't remove their hands. They can still use their feet to kick people.RedTwizzler wrote:
Yeah, and anyone who assaults someone should have their hands cut off so they can't do it again!Tetrino wrote:
I support sex offender castration. Stops them from doing what they do and removes their horny personalities from the gene pool.
Go home, Hammurabi.
What you do, is cut out the part of their brains that process aggression.
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.
I don't think the sex offender list works. It's too broad. On this list you have people who have streaked at a sporting event or peeped their neighbor lumped together with paedophiles and rapists. That's not fair. Although I do support people knowing when a sex offender has moved close to them when the crime is heinous, it's unfair to inform them the same when the crime is mild. In those case people should be able to have the opportunity to have their slate wiped clean.
I don't think the sex offender list works. It's too broad. On this list you have people who have streaked at a sporting event or peeped their neighbor lumped together with paedophiles and rapists. That's not fair. Although I do support people knowing when a sex offender has moved close to them when the crime is heinous, it's unfair to inform them the same when the crime is mild. In those case people should be able to have the opportunity to have their slate wiped clean.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Then why wouldn't you just cut out the part of the sex offender's brains that makes them sexually abuse people?Tetrino wrote:
When it comes to assault, you don't remove their hands. They can still use their feet to kick people.RedTwizzler wrote:
Yeah, and anyone who assaults someone should have their hands cut off so they can't do it again!Tetrino wrote:
I support sex offender castration. Stops them from doing what they do and removes their horny personalities from the gene pool.
Go home, Hammurabi.
What you do, is cut out the part of their brains that process aggression.
And you said we needed to remove OTHER people from the gene pool? Jesus H. Christ...
Whenever these topics come up in threads, the sheer number of people who support the killing of people who have paid their debt to society is appalling. It's profoundly saddening that so many people need to be governed by laws to be able to act as civilised people.
Let's just kill everyone we don't agree with.
Let's just kill everyone we don't agree with.
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.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.
Last edited by mikkel (2008-01-12 19:34:10)
Like I said we can tell them where to find it .. wink wink.. But I understand the reasoning behind it.Turquoise wrote:
Interesting... personally, I think you should be allowed to tell them. If we're going to release information, we should be able to use it for all logical purposes.Kmarion wrote:
I attended a Real Estate seminar last Friday. They advised us to not discriminate against registered sexual predators when showing homes to potential buyers. This is not because we have no ethics. But telling someone that the house should not be bought because of a nearby sex offender makes you liable. You could be steering them into the middle of a block with 4 or 5 sex offenders. They just haven't been caught yet. We can tell them how to find out the information, but that's as far as we should go.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
A man can still lead a relatively normal life without his penis. Without his arms, doing stuff becomes a lot harder.RedTwizzler wrote:
Then why wouldn't you just cut out the part of the sex offender's brains that makes them sexually abuse people?Tetrino wrote:
When it comes to assault, you don't remove their hands. They can still use their feet to kick people.RedTwizzler wrote:
Yeah, and anyone who assaults someone should have their hands cut off so they can't do it again!
Go home, Hammurabi.
What you do, is cut out the part of their brains that process aggression.
And you said we needed to remove OTHER people from the gene pool? Jesus H. Christ...
Do you really want established paedophiles speading their screwed up genes and creating more problems for the innocent ones?
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.Tetrino wrote:
A man can still lead a relatively normal life without his penis. Without his arms, doing stuff becomes a lot harder.RedTwizzler wrote:
Then why wouldn't you just cut out the part of the sex offender's brains that makes them sexually abuse people?Tetrino wrote:
When it comes to assault, you don't remove their hands. They can still use their feet to kick people.
What you do, is cut out the part of their brains that process aggression.
And you said we needed to remove OTHER people from the gene pool? Jesus H. Christ...
Do you really want established paedophiles speading their screwed up genes and creating more problems for the innocent ones?
I agree. I don't know how anyone can advocate lobotomies and penectomies and actually be serious.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.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-01-12 19:47:00)