BF2S Forums Sex offender laws need to be reworked

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually no they are not, a violent criminals life is not recognized like those of law abiding citizens..too bad

Not to be pedantic, but I said 'citizen' in the same way that you used it to refer to a group that contains violent criminals in this message.

lowing wrote:

Ok no, so you are fine with "3 strikes", just as long as the second or third strike is not someone you know....Although I appreciate the honesty, it is non the less, a rediculous opinion, and does not support your argument at all.

I didn't say that at all, and you know it.  I said I hoped no one was the first, second, or third strike.  I guess next time I will be more verbose.  The problem with a registry and living with a lifetime of punishment for the possibility of being a repeat offender is being punished for a thought crime.  That's insane.

lowing wrote:

The govt can keep tabs on all citizens right now, is it too much to put an "*" next to all violent criminals?

And I don't want any of that.  At all.  Keeping tabs on it's citizens is NOT the role of government.  In fact, it's the other way around.  How misguided are we in this country?

lowing wrote:

I am not interested in second, let alone third chances for people that have devistated someone elses life..sorry

Well, where do you draw the line for a life being devastated?  From the sounds of it, you'd probably rather have them in prison for life.  If that's the case, just say so.  It would probably be cheaper.

I do not view violent criminals as citizens..I view them as cast outs, as they should be.

No, you didn't say " no one" here is what you said and I quoute           "And no, I obviously wouldn't want anyone I know to be the victim of violent crime (or any crime for that matter), but trouncing upon the rights of other people is just not right.  You want me to give up my objectivity, and it won't work."....you said "anyone you know". Based on this I responded. What is insane is your willingness to simply release a violent criminal 2 and 3 times before you decide that hey, this guy is dangerous.

You have SS cards, DL's, and pay taxes, you are known by the govt. so again, is it too much to far fetched to have special attention drawn to those that are KNOWN for violent behavior against law abiding citzens? Protection of law abiding citizens is one of the functions of our govt.

Violent criminals? rape murder child molesotrs etc...should be capital crimes deserving of nothing less than to be put down like a fuckin rabid dog.

SenorToenails wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Why not?  They treated others like dirt.  Don't want to be treated like dirt for the rest of your life, don't do the crime.

Then what, exactly, is the point of prison?  Do the crime, do the time.  When your time is up, your punishment should be over.  If the time isn't long enough, fix that.  But shoehorning BS registries on people so they can NEVER lead a quasi-normal life after they did their time is total crap.

I am speaking about violent criminals. I do not include petty crimes.

lowing wrote:

I do not view violent criminals as citizens..I view them as cast outs, as they should be.

No, you didn't say " no one" here is what you said and I quoute           "And no, I obviously wouldn't want anyone I know to be the victim of violent crime (or any crime for that matter), but trouncing upon the rights of other people is just not right.  You want me to give up my objectivity, and it won't work."....you said "anyone you know". Based on this I responded. What is insane is your willingness to simply release a violent criminal 2 and 3 times before you decide that hey, this guy is dangerous.

You have SS cards, DL's, and pay taxes, you are known by the govt. so again, is it too much to far fetched to have special attention drawn to those that are KNOWN for violent behavior against law abiding citzens? Protection of law abiding citizens is one of the functions of our govt.

Violent criminals? rape murder child molesotrs etc...should be capital crimes deserving of nothing less than to be put down like a fuckin rabid dog.

Lowing, you got me!  Oh my!  I answered your question regarding people I know being victim of a crime and I answered in context of EVERYONE I know.  I guess I should have known you'd twist that to mean everyone else can go ahead and be a victim...as long as it isn't people I know, right?  Good god man!

Anyway, you never did answer my question:  Well, where do you draw the line for a life being devastated?

SenorToenails wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Why not?  They treated others like dirt.  Don't want to be treated like dirt for the rest of your life, don't do the crime.

Then what, exactly, is the point of prison?  Do the crime, do the time.  When your time is up, your punishment should be over.  If the time isn't long enough, fix that.  But shoehorning BS registries on people so they can NEVER lead a quasi-normal life after they did their time is total crap.

You live on a cul-de-sac with six houses.  You have two daughters under eight and one son under ten.

If there was a sex offender on your street would you move?  How about two?  How many?  three, four...what number?

Now, what about a drug dealer/murderer.  How many houses with multiple felonies?


Honestly, would you move?

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not view violent criminals as citizens..I view them as cast outs, as they should be.

No, you didn't say " no one" here is what you said and I quoute           "And no, I obviously wouldn't want anyone I know to be the victim of violent crime (or any crime for that matter), but trouncing upon the rights of other people is just not right.  You want me to give up my objectivity, and it won't work."....you said "anyone you know". Based on this I responded. What is insane is your willingness to simply release a violent criminal 2 and 3 times before you decide that hey, this guy is dangerous.

You have SS cards, DL's, and pay taxes, you are known by the govt. so again, is it too much to far fetched to have special attention drawn to those that are KNOWN for violent behavior against law abiding citzens? Protection of law abiding citizens is one of the functions of our govt.

Violent criminals? rape murder child molesotrs etc...should be capital crimes deserving of nothing less than to be put down like a fuckin rabid dog.

Lowing, you got me!  Oh my!  I answered your question regarding people I know being victim of a crime and I answered in context of EVERYONE I know.  I guess I should have known you'd twist that to mean everyone else can go ahead and be a victim...as long as it isn't people I know, right?  Good god man!

Anyway, you never did answer my question:  Well, where do you draw the line for a life being devastated?

I didn't twist shit. You are a proponent of the 3 strikes rule, I asked if you would mind if that second or third strike turned out ot be a relative of yuors, you said you do not want "anyone you know" to be that second or third victim...nothing is twisted, that is what you said. Here is the thing, if you are a proponent of 3 strikes you are out, it is logical to assume SOMEONE has to be the second and the third strike. You support this, you said it and you condone it as long as it is someone you do not know.

If a person can not continue with a normal life either physically or mentally. That life has been devistated.

lowing wrote:

I didn't twist shit. You are a proponent of the 3 strikes rule, I asked if you would mind if that second or third strike turned out ot be a relative of yuors, you said you do not want "anyone you know" to be that second or third victim...nothing is twisted, that is what you said. Here is the thing, if you are a proponent of 3 strikes you are out, it is logical to assume SOMEONE has to be the second and the third strike. You support this, you said it and you condone it as long as it is someone you do not know.

I support the three strikes laws.  Yes.  That does NOT mean I support people being victimized.  That's a helluva jump, and it's entirely incorrect.

lowing wrote:

If a person can not continue with a normal life either physically or mentally. That life has been devistated.

Woah, subjective.

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

I didn't twist shit. You are a proponent of the 3 strikes rule, I asked if you would mind if that second or third strike turned out ot be a relative of yuors, you said you do not want "anyone you know" to be that second or third victim...nothing is twisted, that is what you said. Here is the thing, if you are a proponent of 3 strikes you are out, it is logical to assume SOMEONE has to be the second and the third strike. You support this, you said it and you condone it as long as it is someone you do not know.

I support the three strikes laws.  Yes.  That does NOT mean I support people being victimized.  That's a helluva jump, and it's entirely incorrect.

lowing wrote:

If a person can not continue with a normal life either physically or mentally. That life has been devistated.

Woah, subjective.

What am I missing? You support someone having a second victim and only AFTER the third victim are you willing to take the violent criminal out of circulation. Sorry, in order t ohave a second or third violent crime, you must have a second and third victim of that crime...but again, as you said, as long as it is not someone you know.

subjective? Who should decide what is nromal for a victim other than the victim themselves? If a raped victim says her life is altered mentally, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt....

Apparently you are only willing to give the beneift of the doubt to a violent criminal in hopes that he won't commit a second violent crime and then a third.

SenorToenails wrote:

Pug wrote:

I'm not saying COULD be, they are out of jail.

Be honest.

The dude across the street raped a six year old.  But he's found Jesus.

The dude watering the garden next to you did eight years for trafficking, plea bargained away the shooting.  But he's found Jesus.


Your kids are playing in the front lawn.


Are you going to move?

I do understand where you are coming from and the point of this...but I honestly can't say what I would do in that situation since I am not in it.

it's called a hypothetical situation.

what would you do?

Pug wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Pug wrote:

I'm not saying COULD be, they are out of jail.

Be honest.

The dude across the street raped a six year old.  But he's found Jesus.

The dude watering the garden next to you did eight years for trafficking, plea bargained away the shooting.  But he's found Jesus.


Your kids are playing in the front lawn.


Are you going to move?

I do understand where you are coming from and the point of this...but I honestly can't say what I would do in that situation since I am not in it.

it's called a hypothetical situation.

what would you do?

A hypothetical situation ought to have more information than just what you've given.  That is why I can't answer it.  Have I met these guys?  How long ago was their crime?  What steps have they taken toward rehabilitation?  How old are my kids?  Are there other kids in the neighborhood?  Are there other parents who keep an eye on their youngens, so if my kids went outside to play with their kids, would they be supervised?  See?  There is a lot that you aren't saying.

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

What am I missing? You support someone having a second victim and only AFTER the third victim are you willing to take the violent criminal out of circulation. Sorry, in order t ohave a second or third violent crime, you must have a second and third victim of that crime...but again, as you said, as long as it is not someone you know.

subjective? Who should decide what is nromal for a victim other than the victim themselves? If a raped victim says her life is altered mentally, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt....

Apparently you are only willing to give the beneift of the doubt to a violent criminal in hopes that he won't commit a second violent crime and then a third.

NO.  lowing, NO.  I did NOT say 'as long as it's someone I don't know'.  I said 'That does NOT mean I support people being victimized.'.  What part of that is not understood?  I don't want my family or friends to be victimized, but I did not say I would rather someone else get it instead.

Sigh...I never said to shit on the victims, but I did say before that the price paid by the criminal is not solely about the victim.  It's about making them pay society for their crimes.  I didn't say give them the benefit of the doubt, I said let them pay and move on.  If they aren't changing their ways, impose harsher penalties.  Maybe make it a two strike law....I would support that.  Get one extra chance AFTER you serve the first sentence.  But the point of this is, and it's getting lost, is that the original penalties should be enough.  If they aren't right now, then they ought to be changed to something else.  And of course, you'd argue that society has done that...and maybe they have, I just don't like it.

Yeah it is hard to understand.


Explain how you can support a violent criminal having the opportunity to commit a second and a third violent crime, without there being a second or third victim?

and yes, the price paid by a criminal should be soley abot the victim, sine it is the victim and or family that has been affected soley.

there is little difference between letting a violent criminal out and trusting they do not repeat and giving them the "benefit of the doubt".

I see, so you now support 2 strikes. Can I assume it would be ok if it were someone you know who can be the second victim? Oh wait, I forgot, you support doing something AFTER the  second violent crime and assume there will not be a second violent crime victim..

Pug wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

A hypothetical situation ought to have more information than just what you've given.  That is why I can't answer it.  Have I met these guys?  How long ago was their crime?  What steps have they taken toward rehabilitation?  How old are my kids?  Are there other kids in the neighborhood?  Are there other parents who keep an eye on their youngens, so if my kids went outside to play with their kids, would they be supervised?  See?  There is a lot that you aren't saying.

hypocrite

Right.  The only winning move was not to play.

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah it is hard to understand.


Explain how you can support a violent criminal having the opportunity to commit a second and a third violent crime, without there being a second or third victim?

and yes, the price paid by a criminal should be soley abot the victim, sine it is the victim and or family that has been affected soley.

there is little difference between letting a violent criminal out and trusting they do not repeat and giving them the "benefit of the doubt".

I see, so you now support 2 strikes. Can I assume it would be ok if it were someone you know who can be the second victim? Oh wait, I forgot, you support doing something AFTER the  second violent crime and assume there will not be a second violent crime victim..

You have a pretty big loophole here, lowing.  Why let someone commit the crime to begin with?  If you support punishing criminals, then you support having the first victim.  Should I assume you would want someone you know to be the first one?

See how insane that reasoning is?

Nope that does not work....A person can reasonably be assumed to be a law abiding citizen until PROVEN otherwise by a violent crime...After the first time, their is no doubt that the violent criminal IS crazy enough and dangerous enough to be a violent criminal. They then have earned special consideration, and special attention and should not be entrusted in society again for a seond time let alone the third fuckin tiem.

still waitng on how you can support a second and third chance at violent crime without there being a second and third violent crime victim.