NationStates

Lizardiar wrote:You wouldn't be disgusted by them since they had sex with a 6 year-old?

The personal disgust -- even hatred -- that I feel for such people does not give me justification to abuse them. Abuse is abuse, and it is always wrong -- or else it wouldn't be abuse. A bad victim does not make a bad action good.

Hydrosteria wrote:
Oh and as a side note, most evidence suggests that pedophilic tendencies as it were are incurable.

Interesting, considering that of all criminal offenders, it's the sexual offenders who are in fact least likely to re-offend, if offered psychological help and medical treatment.

Grays Harbor wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yup. The last thing we want to do is increase funding to the police and social services. Thank you for showing me the light.

my point is, just where does all this extra money come from? there are schools to maintain, fire departments, city services, sewar services, etc, etc, etc. Police isn't the only thing. Whose budget do you cut to allow for more funding for somebody else? Which service is less vital than the next? "raising taxes" is not the end-all and be-all of everything. Taxes are already high enough as is. you need to grow up and join the real world. being a smart-ass don't help none either.

It's called proper budgeting and prioritization. I used to live in Florida and understand that the government has a wonderful ability to mismanage it's own budget - seems place of entertainment or abandoned projects like to garner more money then say, the police department. Also, nation wide, security funding was cut back, for reasons that were never sensibly explained to me.

Anyway, when did this become about taxes? I thought the discussion was centered around essentially human dignity and fair treatment? I agree with Murv, lets get back on subject.

Someone provide evidence that the current way Miami is handling it's sex offenders works in the long run, or at all.

Grays Harbor wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yup. The last thing we want to do is increase funding to the police and social services. Thank you for showing me the light.

my point is, just where does all this extra money come from? there are schools to maintain, fire departments, city services, sewar services, etc, etc, etc. Police isn't the only thing. Whose budget do you cut to allow for more funding for somebody else? Which service is less vital than the next? "raising taxes" is not the end-all and be-all of everything. Taxes are already high enough as is. you need to grow up and join the real world.

I never said it would be easy or simple, but if the police and social services are too overworked and understaffed to monitor people known to be likely to commit some kind of serious sex crime(as you said they are) then clearly the need the money.

being a smart-ass don't help none either.

But I enjoy it so.

Cabra West wrote:

Hydrosteria wrote:
Oh and as a side note, most evidence suggests that pedophilic tendencies as it were are incurable.

Interesting, considering that of all criminal offenders, it's the sexual offenders who are in fact least likely to re-offend, if offered psychological help and medical treatment.

You're both right - sorta. Individuals with a pedophillic sexual orientation do exist, and yes you cannot change sexual orientation. However, this does not mean said individual cannot be taught to control said sexual urges and abstain - just because the sexual attraction is there does not mean people necessarily act on it. Furthermore, these actually constitute a very very small proportion of sexual offenders against minors. After all most cases of sexual abuse of children is due to incest and these individuals have very low reoffence rates. Many more have significant psychological issues either surrounding sex or relations with adults (some due to abuse themselves, others due to mental disturbance, retardations) and these too respond very well to rehabilitation. It's a complex issue and there is no simple solution or simple rule with regards to risk.

Some sex offenders are very risky, who won't respond to treatment, who will reoffend and probably should never be let out, but these are the very small minority compared to those who are relatively low risk. I'd argue that it is better to ensure the justice system is such that those who are a significant risk can be identified in prison and either kept incarcerated or kept under very strict surveillance whilst those who are lower risk are allowed to actually reintegrate in society, forms ties with the community, have a fixed address where they can be monitored and thus even further reduce their chances of reoffending.

Cabra West wrote:The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you're not interested in stopping people from re-offending, but in plain revenge.

It's the "internet tough guy" syndrome.

Eofaerwic wrote:
You're both right - sorta. Individuals with a pedophillic sexual orientation do exist, and yes you cannot change sexual orientation. However, this does not mean said individual cannot be taught to control said sexual urges and abstain - just because the sexual attraction is there does not mean people necessarily act on it. Furthermore, these actually constitute a very very small proportion of sexual offenders against minors. After all most cases of sexual abuse of children is due to incest and these individuals have very low reoffence rates. Many more have significant psychological issues either surrounding sex or relations with adults (some due to abuse themselves, others due to mental disturbance, retardations) and these too respond very well to rehabilitation. It's a complex issue and there is no simple solution or simple rule with regards to risk.

Some sex offenders are very risky, who won't respond to treatment, who will reoffend and probably should never be let out, but these are the very small minority compared to those who are relatively low risk. I'd argue that it is better to ensure the justice system is such that those who are a significant risk can be identified in prison and either kept incarcerated or kept under very strict surveillance whilst those who are lower risk are allowed to actually reintegrate in society, forms ties with the community, have a fixed address where they can be monitored and thus even further reduce their chances of reoffending.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that paedophily can be "cured". It's a sexual orientation, there's very little anybody can do about who or what they feel attracted to.
However, it can be controlled.

As you pointed out, the number of paedophiles is much smaller than the hyped-up press would have us believe. And of that, only a fraction will actually become active sex-offenders. Just being attracted to children does not make a person a sex-offender. Many of them are well aware that to actually approach a child in a sexual way will be harmful for the child, and to a lot of them that thought is unbearable. After all, children are the objects of their affection, they "love" them.

As with all areas in life, the ones we need to fear are the psychopaths, the ones who will not mind hurting others in the least.
And to be perfectly honest, I'd rather see these people institutionalised until - if ever - they'll no longer be threat to the public, rather than having them live under a bridge somewhere.

Cabra West wrote:As you pointed out, the number of paedophiles is much smaller than the hyped-up press would have us believe. And of that, only a fraction will actually become active sex-offenders. Just being attracted to children does not make a person a sex-offender. Many of them are well aware that to actually approach a child in a sexual way will be harmful for the child, and to a lot of them that thought is unbearable. After all, children are the objects of their affection, they "love" them.

We are only just starting to really understand sex offending (indeed offending generally, forensic psychology is a relatively young discipline in many ways) and the treatment programmes are generally less effective with paedophiles (in terms of sexual orientation) compared to child sexual offenders for other reasons (mental disurbances etc). However, the more research done, the better we understand it, the better we can use rehabilitation and of course this can be in part because those who end up in prison have issues over and above the sexual orientation.

As with all areas in life, the ones we need to fear are the psychopaths, the ones who will not mind hurting others in the least.

True, but even then many of them won't commit criminal behaviours and indeed many of them often do quite well in business contexts.

Hydrosteria wrote:Oh and as a side note, most evidence suggests that pedophilic tendencies as it were are incurable.

This I believe is more than likely true itr would be like trying to cure a homosexual.

However, in saying that the difference is that people can stop from acting out their thoughts and desires just like a person can stop from acting out their desire from having sex with an adult, cause if they don't and the other person doesn't consent then it is rape.

See the difference?

They've done their time. They don't deserve to live in a city where half the population is high-ranked priests.

Hydrosteria wrote:

Allanea wrote:Here's a hint. Even prison inmates get food and running water. People whose prison term is over do not deserve to be confined to what are essentially stone-age conditions.
the barest minimum, there's no good reason to treat 'sex offenders' - which is a nebulous, retarded term covering everybody from real pedophiles to people like that Marine - worse than you treat paroled murderers
At.

Bah, half the people here are going to call me a monster for saying this but people who do terrible things to chidren when they're vulnerable and too young to understand shouldn't receive even basic human rights. If you violate someone elses life for your own grotesque desires be it rape or murder then you should forfeit any rights you had.

As far as i'm concerned they forfeited their rights when they violated other peoples rights. We shouldn't be pushing them under the bridge we should be throwing them off a bridge.

But hay ho, welcome to the 21st century where in Britain the prisoners have a better lifestyle than alot of normal honest citizens.

Oh and as a side note, most evidence suggests that pedophilic tendencies as it were are incurable.

Because children were involved, it makes sense that we can magically throw away all reason and logical thinking. After all, "think of the children" has always lead to sound and justifiable decision making and is not emotional bullshit at all.

SoWiBi wrote:Seriously. If you aren't willing to move to the next fucking town, then I guess you have to bear the consequences.

People keep saying this like they're the first ones in the world to figure this out. This bridge in Miami is not a unique locale where all the sex offenders in Florida congregate. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of similar locations around the country; miserable locations that sex offenders have found are the only places they can legally live. The original article even mentions that correctional authorities began dropping recently released sex offenders at the bridge because there was nowhere else to legally take them.

Miami isn't the only place in the country that has laws like this. It is not as though they can just move to the next town that doesn't have the distance law. The distance may vary, but laws such as this are virtually universal.

Grays Harbor wrote:I believe you may have set a new record for qualifiers in support of blanket leniency for an entire class of offenders.

Nice false dichotomy and strawman. And in any case, where was it proven that treating Registered Sex Offenders- regardless of the nature of the actual offense- like outcasts even worse than convicted murderers or terrorists will actually prevent them from re-offending? As has been pointed out by others, the stigma attached to the Sex Offender label even after proper sentence has been served will only encourage the lack of registration and in the case of these homeless individuals, to drop out of the legal radar entirely. And the ones that you don't know where they are or what they're doing? Those are the most dangerous.

The "fact" that some areas of "sex offender" may not be the most just in the system is not an argument for leniency, it is, however, an argument that parts of the classification need looked at and perhaps changed. Cases should be looked at individually, not with a "one size fits all" system such as the 'zero tolerence' nonsense. You think things like public urination should not be listed as a sex crime? Good. Then get your city council, legislature, whatever, to remove it from the list as it doesn't belong there. It isn't a justification for blanket leniency though, especially where child molestation is concerned.

Easier said than done. Again, the stigma attached to Sex Offenders are greater than those of murderers or even terrorists like Osama Bin Ladin. No matter what the actual crime was, any Registered Sex Offender will be treated no differently than a child molester. Now, just try and changing the law to make it more fair and what happens? Opponents will simply declare that you're trying to "grant a blanket leniency to child molesters and rapists" and the public outcry will have little trouble preserving such an bass-ackwards law. Until American society learns to stop obcessing with the notion of "Registered Sex Offender = Child Rapist" then people are willing to swallow this draconian crap, if you got caught peeing or you're a teen making out with another teen, then that's too fucking bad.

Also, having ankle bracelets or some sort of GPS monitering system as some others here suggested may sound good, but think on this. Who is going to be doing the monitering? Social Services is already grossly overworked and understaffed. The Police are not much better off. The possibility (yes, I am going to use a qualifier as well) that somebody could slip through the cracks in that system is just as likely as not. And then we would have headlines about CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTER CAUGHT MOLESTING AGAIN. WHY WASN'T HE STOPPED? Things like that are what the system is trying to prevent.

Treating Registered Sex Offenders as pariahs even after they've served their sentence will only widen the cracks into gaping potholes.

That the 'sex offender' classification needs to be looked at seriously is not in dispute. There are some cases where the blanket don't fit, such as the one case here in Georgia where the 19 year old kid was convicted of rape and is listed as a sex offender because he was having oral sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. Even the girls parents agree that it was a stupid ruling. But these cases are the exception, not the rule, and are an argument in favor of getting rid of the, as I said before, blanket "one size fits all" system. Not everybody placed on the sex offenders list belongs there. They are the exceptions. Most on the list do belong there, and all the sympathy I see here is entirely misplaced as far as those folk are concerned.

As that one man in the linked article said, nobody ever lost votes being tough on sex crimes. The converse is true. Trying to legislate sense into such a draconian law will only be perceived as being soft on sex crimes or worse, aiding and abetting child molesters and rapists. How many people have actually been elected on the platform of reforming Sex Offender laws rather than maintaining or "strengthening" them?

If you don't like the idea of stupid things like peeing in the park being labeled as 'sex offender', then work to get it off the list, don't use it as an excuse to excuse those who do belong there.

Nice strawman. Where did I excuse the behavior of actual child molesters and rapists? Again as others pointed out, treating Registered Sex Offenders as pariahs even when sentence has been served will only aggravate the problem by pushing them to drop off the social radar or even not registering in the first place.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Allanea wrote:If he's a rapist, then obviously rape is wrong. But then it'd be wrong if she were 116, too, right?

If he's not a rapist, then he's not a rapist.

It is true that the laws of various states differ, but most don't distinquish between rapists and "it was just rape 'cuz she was a youngin."

Regardless, if he didn't use violence, would it be OK if his victim were 6?

It might be. Sex isn't abuse. It's not harmful unless it's not consented to, at which case it becomes rape. Rape, however, is not the issue.

The simple fact of the matter is that the only thing traumatizing children when they have sexual contact with an adult is the people telling the child that something they enjoyed is wrong and that they're supposed to be damaged, plus the demonization of someone that they liked and trusted.

Therefore I challenge that it is not the "sex offender" that is harming the children, but you.

Derscon wrote:It might be. Sex isn't abuse. It's not harmful unless it's not consented to, at which case it becomes rape. Rape, however, is not the issue.

The simple fact of the matter is that the only thing traumatizing children when they have sexual contact with an adult is the people telling the child that something they enjoyed is wrong and that they're supposed to be damaged, plus the demonization of someone that they liked and trusted.

Therefore I challenge that it is not the "sex offender" that is harming the children, but you.

That is one of the sickest things I have ever read. Up there with defending the Holocaust.

Derscon wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:It is true that the laws of various states differ, but most don't distinquish between rapists and "it was just rape 'cuz she was a youngin."

Regardless, if he didn't use violence, would it be OK if his victim were 6?

It might be. Sex isn't abuse. It's not harmful unless it's not consented to, at which case it becomes rape. Rape, however, is not the issue.

The simple fact of the matter is that the only thing traumatizing children when they have sexual contact with an adult is the people telling the child that something they enjoyed is wrong and that they're supposed to be damaged, plus the demonization of someone that they liked and trusted.

Therefore I challenge that it is not the "sex offender" that is harming the children, but you.

Assuming you are neither trolling nor simply depraved beyond reason, you must have some evidence -- published research, for example -- to back up this "challenge" to not only my own personal experience and the collective wisdom of practically everyone who has thought about the subject that isn't a pedophile, but also the consensus of experts in the relevant subjects.

Derscon wrote:

It might be. Sex isn't abuse. It's not harmful unless it's not consented to, at which case it becomes rape. Rape, however, is not the issue.

The simple fact of the matter is that the only thing traumatizing children when they have sexual contact with an adult is the people telling the child that something they enjoyed is wrong and that they're supposed to be damaged, plus the demonization of someone that they liked and trusted.

Therefore I challenge that it is not the "sex offender" that is harming the children, but you.

I think half someones brain is missing.

Derscon wrote:The simple fact of the matter is that the only thing traumatizing children when they have sexual contact with an adult is the people telling the child that something they enjoyed is wrong and that they're supposed to be damaged, plus the demonization of someone that they liked and trusted.

Therefore I challenge that it is not the "sex offender" that is harming the children, but you.

Ah, the 'children enjoy it, so it's not child rape' argument. How challenging.

So many sexual predators spew this exact same justification myth, that their victims "enjoyed" it. But I guess that's why you chose to troll with it, because you know how much it angers people who make the mistake of thinking you're less than 100% bullshit.

Phenia wrote:

Derscon wrote:The simple fact of the matter is that the only thing traumatizing children when they have sexual contact with an adult is the people telling the child that something they enjoyed is wrong and that they're supposed to be damaged, plus the demonization of someone that they liked and trusted.

Therefore I challenge that it is not the "sex offender" that is harming the children, but you.

Ah, the 'children enjoy it, so it's not child rape' argument. How challenging.

So many sexual predators spew this exact same justification myth, that their victims "enjoyed" it. But I guess that's why you chose to troll with it, because you know how much it angers people who make the mistake of thinking you're less than 100% bullshit.

Your clearly emotional argument conditioned into you, as if children enjoying sexual pleasure is some sort of pathology, is clouding your ability to see reason. This isn't surprising, what with the hyperbole and propaganda (admittedly, on all sides) spewed forth. Experiencing sexual pleasure is not a pathology in a child, and a child desiring or being curious about it is not "bad" or dangerous. It is healthy, and quite frankly, should be encouraged. The fact is, a healthy, compassionate, and encouraging attitude towards sexual/sensual education (and I don't mean formal classes, either) - one that doesn't force them into thinking that sexual pleasure is wrong for them to experience - will create far more responsible children.

Am I saying that there is no abuse? Of course not. But rape is rape no matter what age it is, and ages don't make rape any less abhorrent. Alas, rape is not the issue here. What is the issue is that we seem to think that children either cannot or should not be able to enjoy sexual pleasure, which is not only not true, but extremely dangerous. I don't have a link on hand, but I know Bruce Rind of Temple published a study in the APA's Psychological Bulletin back in...1997 I think? Or 98, I don't remember...basically saying that - surprise - not all minors say that the sexual experience is traumatizing. And frankly, what would you be more traumatized at: having an orgasm, or having your parents freak the fuck out at a level unheard of?

Do we label that all sex with 18 year old girls is rape? All 21 year olds? ALL 16 year olds? No, of course not, and I say we shouldn't label that ALL - that EVERY SINGLE CASE - of a child experiencing sexual/sensual stimulation is abuse/rape. Now, in the case of the forty-year-old and the six year old, is it likely that there is some sort of coercion/abuse? I would say yes, but likely =/= definitely.

Again, I don't mean in any way to diminish the tragedy and emotional destruction that sexual abuse causes, but at the same time, I must urge caution in this unthought conditioned response to go on a beserking rage any time "sex" and "child" are mentioned in the same sentence.

Our friend's family has nowhere to live.

The mom is a hard worker and a good provider. The kids have never been in trouble.

The dad propositioned the sexy 16 year old baby sitter.

So now he is a convicted pervert and none of the family can live within a mile of a school or a church.

They all love dad and do not want to be separated from him.

So now they all get to live as pariahs, separated from any kind of society, while he searches for employers who are willing to hire "scum'" like him.

Remember, the guys who passed these laws were abusing interns and playing footsie in airport restrooms.