BF2S Forums Sex offender laws need to be reworked

lowing wrote:

I see, so fuck the person that is traumatized, fuck understanding, and compassion for what they have to go through. and coddle the person that committed the crime with sympathy, understanding and forgivness..

All of you preach how we are shaped by our environment, apparently unless you are a victim, then you should just shake it off and move on, you are not expected to carry what has happened to you as something that shaped your life. You excuse a criminal and condemn the victim.

Sadly, it's a common trend.

lowing wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

lowing wrote:

I see, so fuck the person that is traumatized, fuck understanding, and compassion for what they have to go through. and coddle the person that committed the crime with sympathy, understanding and forgivness..

All of you preach how we are shaped by our environment, apparently unless you are a victim, then you should just shake it off and move on, you are not expected to carry what has happened to you as something that shaped your life. You excuse a criminal and condemn the victim.

Sadly, it's a common trend.

not really, it is just an internet forum full of dumb fu..........never mind

Common trend meaning, ignore responsible and hardworking people to coddle the irresponsible self-entitlement mobs.

In this case:  Oh poor dear.  You had a hard life.  Dad left you.  Mom didn't teach you values.  You hardly have any food.  You go ahead and rob and murder.  It's easier than working.  It's ok.  We'll forgive you.

Last edited by Ilocano (2010-04-19 16:01:17)

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

If they want to be a victim for life that's their own damn problem. Most of us get over the bad shit that happens in our life and move on. If they are somehow missing that piece of the evolutionary puzzle, fuck 'em. If a woman has been raped, she's been raped exactly one time in her life, it doesn't continue on a daily basis for the rest of her life. If she's remembering the crap that's happened to her so vividly and so often that it impacts her daily life, maybe she should stop seeing the shrinks that are fucking with her mind for a pay day.

So, after said rapists served his/her time, you would forgive him/her after raping your wife/sister/daughter?  No further punishment?

That's the way the system is supposed to work as it was designed. As I said, if you feel the original punishment isn't harsh enough, fine, but going to jail or paying a fine etc is your punishment for that specific crime. You aren't supposed to be punished for it for the rest of your life. That would be double jeopardy and goes against the entire premise of our justice system.

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

Look, I fully agree that murder or rape should at minimum be a life sentence without parole. I fully agree that the punishment should fit the crime. I also know that what a fitting punishment is, is entirely arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder. You'll never get a group of people together to agree on what is fair. You just have to accept what society in general is willing to tolerate on such issues, and if the punishment is less than you feel is required, so be it. Either way, once time is served, the slate is supposed to be wiped clean for the individual. If it's not, and you continue to make life difficult for them for the rest of their lives, they will turn back to crime. People point at recidivism rates without looking at the root causes, and one of the primary reasons for the return rates is the fact that even when applying for a job at Taco Bell they are required to put on their application that they served time, even if it was for something completely unrelated to the job they are applying for. The way the system is set up now, we might as well kill anyone convicted of a crime, no matter how minor or short the prison sentence handed down, because the rest of their life is now destroyed.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

If they want to be a victim for life that's their own damn problem. Most of us get over the bad shit that happens in our life and move on. If they are somehow missing that piece of the evolutionary puzzle, fuck 'em. If a woman has been raped, she's been raped exactly one time in her life, it doesn't continue on a daily basis for the rest of her life. If she's remembering the crap that's happened to her so vividly and so often that it impacts her daily life, maybe she should stop seeing the shrinks that are fucking with her mind for a pay day.

So, after said rapists served his/her time, you would forgive him/her after raping your wife/sister/daughter?  No further punishment?

That's the way the system is supposed to work as it was designed. As I said, if you feel the original punishment isn't harsh enough, fine, but going to jail or paying a fine etc is your punishment for that specific crime. You aren't supposed to be punished for it for the rest of your life. That would be double jeopardy and goes against the entire premise of our justice system.

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

Look, I fully agree that murder or rape should at minimum be a life sentence without parole. I fully agree that the punishment should fit the crime. I also know that what a fitting punishment is, is entirely arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder. You'll never get a group of people together to agree on what is fair. You just have to accept what society in general is willing to tolerate on such issues, and if the punishment is less than you feel is required, so be it. Either way, once time is served, the slate is supposed to be wiped clean for the individual. If it's not, and you continue to make life difficult for them for the rest of their lives, they will turn back to crime. People point at recidivism rates without looking at the root causes, and one of the primary reasons for the return rates is the fact that even when applying for a job at Taco Bell they are required to put on their application that they served time, even if it was for something completely unrelated to the job they are applying for. The way the system is set up now, we might as well kill anyone convicted of a crime, no matter how minor or short the prison sentence handed down, because the rest of their life is now destroyed.

+1

Ilocano wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Ilocano, as long as I'm beating the drum for being fair here, I suppose I would be referring to anyone where the sentence given is not a lifetime of punishment.

Wait, so rapists and murderers qualify?

I don't know what you really mean by "qualify". It's basically what John is saying up there and what we've been saying since page 1 about how the punishment and the sentence don't seem to be the same thing.

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

So, after said rapists served his/her time, you would forgive him/her after raping your wife/sister/daughter?  No further punishment?

That's the way the system is supposed to work as it was designed. As I said, if you feel the original punishment isn't harsh enough, fine, but going to jail or paying a fine etc is your punishment for that specific crime. You aren't supposed to be punished for it for the rest of your life. That would be double jeopardy and goes against the entire premise of our justice system.

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

Look, I fully agree that murder or rape should at minimum be a life sentence without parole. I fully agree that the punishment should fit the crime. I also know that what a fitting punishment is, is entirely arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder. You'll never get a group of people together to agree on what is fair. You just have to accept what society in general is willing to tolerate on such issues, and if the punishment is less than you feel is required, so be it. Either way, once time is served, the slate is supposed to be wiped clean for the individual. If it's not, and you continue to make life difficult for them for the rest of their lives, they will turn back to crime. People point at recidivism rates without looking at the root causes, and one of the primary reasons for the return rates is the fact that even when applying for a job at Taco Bell they are required to put on their application that they served time, even if it was for something completely unrelated to the job they are applying for. The way the system is set up now, we might as well kill anyone convicted of a crime, no matter how minor or short the prison sentence handed down, because the rest of their life is now destroyed.

Well, they execute rapists and drug dealers in the P.I., so you have my perspective.  Barring the wealthy or connected who can get away with the said crimes, though.

Double Jeopardy.  It's not like the criminal is sent back to trial/jail for the same crime.  But a crime is still a crime.  No double jeopardy here if he is set free.  He just has to live with the consequences/stigma of his crime.

But they already do if they need a police check to apply for certain jobs.
Making a database accessible by ANYONE on ANYONE who's committed a crime leaves much lesser chances for said criminals to turn their lives around, and with limited to none chance in terms of employment, what are they forced to do? More crime?

I'm in agreeance with John here. Just make the punishment fit the crime. Second time offenders should get life, no parole.

Last edited by Jaekus (2010-04-19 16:50:11)

Ilocano wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

But they already do if they need a police check to apply for certain jobs.
Making a database accessible by ANYONE on ANYONE who's committed a crime leaves much lesser chances for said criminals to turn their lives around, and with limited to none chance in terms of employment, what are they forced to do? More crime?

I'm in agreeance with John here. Just make the punishment fit the crime. Second time offenders should get life, no parole.

Answer this.   Sample scenario.  Would you hire your daughters rapist to drive her to school for a month?  The rapist has already served his time.  I would foot the bill.

I'd change the laws so rapists and murderers are executed. There, no more worry about whether a released offender will commit another crime.

Capital Punishment, the sentence with the lowest recidivism rate

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

So, after said rapists served his/her time, you would forgive him/her after raping your wife/sister/daughter?  No further punishment?

That's the way the system is supposed to work as it was designed. As I said, if you feel the original punishment isn't harsh enough, fine, but going to jail or paying a fine etc is your punishment for that specific crime. You aren't supposed to be punished for it for the rest of your life. That would be double jeopardy and goes against the entire premise of our justice system.

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

Look, I fully agree that murder or rape should at minimum be a life sentence without parole. I fully agree that the punishment should fit the crime. I also know that what a fitting punishment is, is entirely arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder. You'll never get a group of people together to agree on what is fair. You just have to accept what society in general is willing to tolerate on such issues, and if the punishment is less than you feel is required, so be it. Either way, once time is served, the slate is supposed to be wiped clean for the individual. If it's not, and you continue to make life difficult for them for the rest of their lives, they will turn back to crime. People point at recidivism rates without looking at the root causes, and one of the primary reasons for the return rates is the fact that even when applying for a job at Taco Bell they are required to put on their application that they served time, even if it was for something completely unrelated to the job they are applying for. The way the system is set up now, we might as well kill anyone convicted of a crime, no matter how minor or short the prison sentence handed down, because the rest of their life is now destroyed.

Well, they execute rapists and drug dealers in the P.I., so you have my perspective.  Barring the wealthy or connected who can get away with the said crimes, though.

Double Jeopardy.  It's not like the criminal is sent back to trial/jail for the same crime.  But a crime is still a crime.  No double jeopardy here if he is set free.  He just has to live with the consequences/stigma of his crime.

There are three essential protections included in the double jeopardy principle, which are:

    * being tried for the same crime after an acquittal
    * retrial after a conviction, unless the conviction has been reversed, vacated or otherwise nullified
    * being punished multiple times for the same offense

Ilocano wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

But they already do if they need a police check to apply for certain jobs.
Making a database accessible by ANYONE on ANYONE who's committed a crime leaves much lesser chances for said criminals to turn their lives around, and with limited to none chance in terms of employment, what are they forced to do? More crime?

I'm in agreeance with John here. Just make the punishment fit the crime. Second time offenders should get life, no parole.

Answer this.   Sample scenario.  Would you hire your daughters rapist to drive her to school for a month?  The rapist has already served his time.  I would foot the bill.

If you read my post, you would have read the part that says "But they already do if they need a police check to apply for certain jobs."

Anyone that has any work with children, the disabled etc. MUST have a police check BY LAW before receiving employment.
I know this, because I have to get police checks for my jobs (teach guitar to people of all ages, the majority children; I also work in mental health).
Therefore a rapist cannot be employed to to do any job that puts them in any contact with children.

Besides all that, your scenario is just trolling and doesn't address this issue at all.

edit: I'd also have to wonder what kind of sick fuck would knowingly offer to pay for someone's rapist to drive them to school each day.

Last edited by Jaekus (2010-04-19 17:35:13)

Jaekus wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

But they already do if they need a police check to apply for certain jobs.
Making a database accessible by ANYONE on ANYONE who's committed a crime leaves much lesser chances for said criminals to turn their lives around, and with limited to none chance in terms of employment, what are they forced to do? More crime?

I'm in agreeance with John here. Just make the punishment fit the crime. Second time offenders should get life, no parole.

Answer this.   Sample scenario.  Would you hire your daughters rapist to drive her to school for a month?  The rapist has already served his time.  I would foot the bill.

If you read my post, you would have read the part that says "But they already do if they need a police check to apply for certain jobs."

Anyone that has any work with children, the disabled etc. MUST have a police check BY LAW before receiving employment.
I know this, because I have to get police checks for my jobs (teach guitar to people of all ages, the majority children; I also work in mental health).
Therefore a rapist cannot be employed to to do any job that puts them in any contact with children.

Besides all that, your scenario is just trolling and doesn't address this issue at all.

My point is, would you hire someone to take care of your daughter if you knew that person was a convicted rapist.  Which is why I commend those police checks.  Same way I would want a police check if I hired someone to work at the warehouse.  Or a maid to clean the house.

No different like me having to fill out a psych form for management positions.

Last edited by Ilocano (2010-04-19 17:36:49)

Ilocano wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Answer this.   Sample scenario.  Would you hire your daughters rapist to drive her to school for a month?  The rapist has already served his time.  I would foot the bill.

If you read my post, you would have read the part that says "But they already do if they need a police check to apply for certain jobs."

Anyone that has any work with children, the disabled etc. MUST have a police check BY LAW before receiving employment.
I know this, because I have to get police checks for my jobs (teach guitar to people of all ages, the majority children; I also work in mental health).
Therefore a rapist cannot be employed to to do any job that puts them in any contact with children.

Besides all that, your scenario is just trolling and doesn't address this issue at all.

My point is, would you hire someone to take care of your daughter if you knew that person was a convicted rapist.  Which is why I commend those police checks.  Same way I would want a police check if I hired someone to work at the warehouse.  Or a maid to clean the house.

No different like me having to fill out a psych form for management positions.

Also, a police check is different than having someone register where their picture, place of residence, place of work and crime are displayed for future reference of everyone, even if said person has already completed their sentence for the crime they committed.

Jaekus wrote:

I've said it twice and you're still missing the point. Maybe those psych evaluations you fill out don't cover proper reading skills.
Once more, for those in the back who can't hear me (this is getting tiresome):

Anyone that has any work with children, the disabled etc. MUST have a police check BY LAW before receiving employment.

I did:
Which is why I commend those police checks.

Yes, I understand the rapists can't be around children, by law.  My question is, regardless of the law, in your heart and mind since he already served his punishment, would you still hire him to watch your daughter?  He did the time, so why not?

The criminal who broke into your house and stole your electronics and prized jewelry.  He served his time for the crime.  Would you hire him to clean your house, while you went out to watch movies?

You guys are saying to not punish them for their crimes.  So, hire them?

Without things like Police Checks, criminal records, and said job applications, the common employer wouldn't know.  You guys are full of crock if you say you'll hire them if you were a victim of them.

Last edited by Ilocano (2010-04-19 18:03:03)

Ilocano wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I've said it twice and you're still missing the point. Maybe those psych evaluations you fill out don't cover proper reading skills.
Once more, for those in the back who can't hear me (this is getting tiresome):

Anyone that has any work with children, the disabled etc. MUST have a police check BY LAW before receiving employment.

I did:
Which is why I commend those police checks.

Yes, I understand the rapists can't be around children, by law.  My question is, regardless of the law, in your heart and mind since he already served his punishment, would you still hire him to watch your daughter?  He did the time, so why not?

The criminal who broke into your house and stole your electronics and prized jewelry.  He served his time for the crime.  Would you hire him to clean your house, while you went out to watch movies?

You guys are saying to not punish them for their crimes.  So, hire them?

Without things like Police Checks, criminal records, and said job applications, the common employer wouldn't know.  You guys are full of crock if you say you'll hire them if you were a victim of them.

It's beside the point though. We've strayed from sex offender registration into basically just keeping track of criminal history of a person.