Law and the Sex Offenders Register

[the]

Right, so are you suggesting that maybe instead of prison those convicted of pedophilia be forced to carry out their sentences in psychiatric hospitals?

Quite possibly yes.

 

[5r6jhd]

Quite possibly yes.

I would have to say I agree. These people don't just need to be punished....they need help.

 

[This]

Right, so are you suggesting that maybe instead of prison those convicted of pedophilia be forced to carry out their sentences in psychiatric hospitals?

I'm being nitpicky, but "pedophilia" isn't the right term here, you can't be convicted of "pedophilia". "Child molestation" is the correct term.

As far as child molesters go, lock them up and throw away the key. They have proven they can't be trusted around children or likely anyone for that matter. Either the crimes are serious enough that we should lock them up forever or kill them, or if the current sentence is suitable than they should serve the current sentence and that's the end of it. This middle ground thing we are trying to do by having a registry isn't really very beneficial to solving the actual problem.

 

[5r6jhd]

I'm being nitpicky, but "pedophilia" isn't the right term here, you can't be convicted of "pedophilia". "Child molestation" is the correct term.

As far as child molesters go, lock them up and throw away the key. They have proven they can't be trusted around children or likely anyone for that matter. Either the crimes are serious enough that we should lock them up forever or kill them, or if the current sentence is suitable than they should serve the current sentence and that's the end of it. This middle ground thing we are trying to do by having a registry isn't really very beneficial to solving the actual problem.

My apologies, I'm really messing up all my words today! You are indeed correct.

 

[acd]

I think that if you have a suspicion or a feeling of that sort--it's best to heed it and get the hell out of there.
Sometimes you just know when something is off... (A friend of mine had that experience which I mentioned in the Creep thread.)

As for the US, we publicize our sex offenders and violent offenders.
You can go to a website, type in an address, and it will show you a radius on a map of all the offenders in that area.
It will also show you a picture, give you a detailed physical description including piercings tattoos or scars etc... AND tell you what kind of offense it was..
You can also find out when the person was imprisoned and when they were released. You can even search people's names to see if they have been convicted of crimes.

And I think it's all good. Those who victimize others should be afforded no privacy, they are a threat to the well-being of others and people should be made fully aware of them.

But most importantly, teach your kids how to kick the shit out of someone who attacks them and how to escape.

 

[InvisibleJim]

If a mom has "suspicions" that is enough for her to move to protect her child.

What I find fascinating is that you routinely deride INFJs for their intuitive feelings. It is boorish and you come off as pig headed.

I think that the idea that random strangers should be restricted in their movements and activities, simply due to your suspicions and without evidence, sums up your mentality and the quality of your character perfectly.

It is the mentality of a weak, inferior mind who views every difference as a threat and that of a person who is complicit in amoral and ultimately selfish hypo-agency.

If you more ethically aim to establish punishment for crime where it has occured but also to establish no penalty where no crime has occured then you are worth talking to because you have learned the concept of justice and fairness, but you aren't.

Past displays of your behaviour have shown that. Therefore, it would be easier if you simply took your collusive and self serving hypo-agency anywhere else.

 

[acd]

I think that the idea that random strangers should be restricted in their movements and activities, simply due to your suspicions and without evidence, sums up your mentality and the quality of your character perfectly.

It is the mentality of a weak, inferior mind who views every difference as a threat and that of a person who is complicit in amoral and ultimately selfish hypo-agency.

If you more ethically aim to establish punishment for crime where it has occured but also to establish no penalty where no crime has occured then you are worth talking to because you have learned the concept of justice and fairness, but you aren't.

Past displays of your behaviour have shown that. Therefore, it would be easier if you simply took your collusive and self serving hypo-agency anywhere else.

 

[InvisibleJim]

 

[Rferraris]

I have no problem with it, I think it needs to be more specific though "Sex offender" is a reeeeeeeally broad term.

I sexually offended you and you didn't even know it.

 

[This]

I sexually offended you and you didn't even know it.

If I didn't know it, than how could I be offended? tehehehe

 

[Rferraris]

I don't beleive that as many people are molested as children as a hysterical press reports.

Ultimately if someone is behaving unusually then you should report them to the authorities; or better yet, if you have bravery ask them what they are about and tell them you didn't like how they were behaving and why.

You don't have the data available to judge the motives or circumstances of someone you don't know and the motives, chances being equal would be entirely benign.

Infact, this is a very immature issue to raise when you have nothing more than suspicion and worse wish another to be incarcerated and their freedom restricted based upon your suspicion.

It's not societies problem to banish anything you might dislike or might classify as risky.

A guy walking backwards down a hill staring at your baby daughter with an obvious hard on. Really, how many hints do you need.

 

[InvisibleJim]

A guy walking backwards down a hill staring at your baby daughter with an obvious hard on. Really, how many hints do you need.

Read the thread.

A crazy guy walks by you and you stare at his package. Then after he eyes your daughter, as he is leaving you stare at his package? Whaaaaat?

What really struck me was you attempt to emasculate a man whose intentions you only suspect, by commenting on the size of his genitals. Thats why I pointed that out - the INFJ in me has to stick up for the little guy. Pun intended, but still seriously suspicious.

 

[AKM]

I was at the beach with my daughter yesterday and we had a brief encounter with someone who was quite obviously a paedophile. It upset me, and got me to thinking again about the laws surrounding the Sex Offenders register.

Here in Ireland we have a Sex Offenders Register, but the contents of that list is not available to the public....so basically you could be living close to a known paedphile/rapist and be none the wiser.

What are the laws like in your country? Do you agree with/disagree with them? What do you think your country should do to protect the general public or protect the righs of the attackers, whichever you feel strongly about?

I live in the US, and I think it's been covered what happens here (there is a public registry.) I don't know that it does a whole lot, because I've checked out our small town and some of the addresses are in neighborhoods I'm familiar with and have friends in, and the person hasn't lived there in ages. Outdated information is often worthless. I don't know how I feel about whether it should exist or not. Anyone who has exploited children in any way should absolutely be listed. 18/15 relationships...would depend. Did the younger one consent but the parents had a fit? If so, maybe not. If the younger one is the one reporting it then yes. As for adult rape and sexual assault...I don't know where to draw the line. I would think someone predatory (stalking a victim, etc.) should be on there, but I'm not so sure about others. I would want to know if someone had done anything like that, but I'd want the context too. I'm sorry that you had to experience that creepiness. I can say that there probably are more victims than they say because I was one when I was very young (and then slightly less young) but one of the men is dead, and the other I don't even remember his last name. I also believe that sexual assault/abuse does not have to include penetration or even total nudity to be traumatic. If your daughter were a few years older and witnessed this for herself with some understanding of what was going on, I bet she would have some emotional issues about it even then. My 2 cents.

 

[Matt3737]

sus·pi·cion/səˈspiSHən/
Noun:
1. A feeling or thought that something is possible, likely, or true.
2. A feeling or belief that someone is guilty of an illegal, dishonest, or unpleasant action.

You don't have the data available to judge the motives or circumstances of someone you don't know and the motives, chances being equal would be entirely benign.

Infact, this is a very immature issue to raise when you have nothing more than suspicion and worse wish another to be incarcerated and their freedom restricted based upon your suspicion.

It's not societies problem to banish anything you might dislike or might classify as risky.

When other people have suspicions, they're irrational emotions.

When [MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION] has suspicions, they're logical deductions.

 

[InvisibleJim]

When other people have suspicions, they're irrational emotions.

When @InvisibleJim has suspicions, they're logical deductions.

If say what you think by showing conclusive evidence it is a less erroneous place to make decisions from than your bullshit whims and gossipmongering.

 

[Matt3737]

If say what you think by showing conclusive evidence it is a less erroneous place to make decisions from than your bullshit whims.

Just because you put 'infact' in front of a sentence does not make it so.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Just because you put 'infact' in front of a sentence does not make it so.

There is no infact in front of that sentence, are you now also hallucinating as opposed to merely being backhandedly callous?

 

[Matt3737]

There is no infact in front of that sentence, are you now also hallucinating as opposed to merely being backhandedly callous?

I was referring to the previously quoted statement as a response to your last. Specifically this:

Infact, this is a very immature issue to raise when you have nothing more than suspicion and worse wish another to be incarcerated and their freedom restricted based upon your suspicion.

I apologize for the confusion, [MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION].

 

[Barnabas]

And here I thought I was going to have a chance to voice my opinion about how harsh(or not harsh enough) laws regarding sex offenders are here in the U.S., oh well let's talk about mods and thread banning and how fun it is to be an asshole instead.

 

[Matt3737]

If you decide that anyone acting in an usual way should be placed on a 'weird persons' register whether sexual or no you are limiting their freedom. If we start that game them why not simply put in place a law banning anyone to walk within the 5ft of everyone else, because to perfectly honest thats about the limit of patience with the average person who says they wish the state to provide them the full freedom to go about their business, suspicious in the eyes of others or not, but whenever they are suspicious of anyone else they expect the state to brand them in some way with whatever their suspicion might be and therefore to 'de-risk' the potential that they might have to deal with anything whatsoever.

That's immature and a complete pandering to the idea that the state will take responsibility where as an adult it is not the states responsibility to provide security for you and/or your child (Shock!) but merely to penalise those who act illegally by de jure definition. It is your responsibility as an adult to make responsible choices which reduce the risk in your environment.

It's actually an immature viewpoint born of the belief that our own parents can protect us from anything, when infact they never could shield us from the manifold of societies ills or risks. We then for some reason expect the state to step in to be our parents as we become parents to our own children and for exactly the same and better reasons yet the state cannot do so; there are reasons that people 20 to 30 years ago did not think in this way when you explicitly consider historical context regarding what it means to brand 'uncomfortable' 'unusual' 'risky' 'odd' 'strangers' who are 'different' so that everyone 'visibly knows who they are'.

I agree with you Jim, but I had to point out that you yourself were being guilty of the same sort of suspicious accusatory behavior that you felt the OP was presenting. I just wanted to tone back the discussion a bit. To be fair to the OP, she responded as an adult should have responded by employing clear risk management behavior. We all operate on limited information and it's not always easy to obtain more accurate information to deliberate upon.

You cannot simply walk up to the gentleman and ask, "Sir, you seem mighty suspicious and I wanted to ask if you were a child molester by chance?"
"Why, yes ma'am, I am."

Since we have to act on our suspicions, it is not unreasonable to expect behavior that will minimize risk whether it is irrational or not. Does that include state sponsored tracking and supervision?

To be fair, I agree there is a lot of exaggerated concern and a lot of grey areas in the implementation of such a system that I think deserves a closer look.

Consider the collegiate pastime of streaking...
This can easily be construed as sexual misconduct in a public context and people might assume this person to have exposed themselves to children in a park.

How can date rape be questionable? Introduce alcohol into the equation with two inebriated consenting adults, mix in a touch of following day remorse and then play the blame game and see who loses...

I'm sure there are plenty of vague scenarios that can be construed as sexual misconduct. I'm not against the register, but I think it should be taken with plenty of suspicion on BOTH ends.