Miami's tent city for sex offenders

[Sarzonia]

The sex offenders who are bitching about their treatment should have thought of that before they committed their crimes.

[Derscon]

That said, the "sex with a minor is OK if it consensual" line of argument is not just wrong, but evil and naseauting.

Why?

'Cuz I said so.

kk

[The Cat-Tribe]

What shouldn't be arguable is that a 30-year-old man that had "sexual relations" (that may or may not have included force or violence) with a 16-year-old in Florida did nothing wrong.

Don't you think if violence was involved, then the article would have mentioned he was a rapist?

The article wasn't about what crime he committed and appears to be relying on his self-reporting.

[The Romulan Republic]

The sex offenders who are bitching about their treatment should have thought of that before they committed their crimes.

Where do people get this idea that a crime, however disgusting, justifies any barbaric treatment whatsoever in retaliation?

[Conserative Morality]

Um. Did I need a smilie to make it clear that response was facetious?

Sorry. 'Tis NSG, after all. I'm afraid the noobs have been getting to me. My apologies.

[Allanea]

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.

[The Cat-Tribe]

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?

[SaintB]

"Age of consent" is put in place for a reason. Cat tribe has the right idea. Just because some folk want to get touchy-feely "I feel so bad for the convicted felons, we should bend over backwards for them" is not a good reason to forget that the convicted sex offenders and child molesters are not the victims.

The fact they are a convicted felon is also not a good reason to force them to live on the fringes of society in tents where they are unable to get jobs and et all; which as was pointed out by Murv does nothing but increase their chances of committing more and more heinous crimes.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

They could always move elsewhere. People are making out like it's a concentration camp.

Actually, they can't. The whole reason they moved there is because they cannot return to their previous homes.

Reasonably, they could just move out of Florida. The bridge is the only place they can legally live in Dade county, not in the United States.

[Conserative Morality]

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?

I quite like the age of consent at 16. I would consider intercourse with someone under the legal age of consent for that state rape, but I was under the (Possibly misguided) notion that it was called 'Statutory rape'? Or, if not hit puberty yet, 'Child Molestation', and entirely different crimes?

[SaintB]

They could always move elsewhere. People are making out like it's a concentration camp.

Actually, they can't. The whole reason they moved there is because they cannot return to their previous homes.

Reasonably, they could just move out of Florida. The bridge is the only place they can legally live in Dade county, not in the United States.

First they have to prove they have employment and a permanent address in that area, or they are in violation of the laws and once again imprisoned.

[Lizardiar]

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?

I quite like the age of consent at 16. I would consider intercourse with someone under the legal age of consent for that state rape, but I was under the (Possibly misguided) notion that it was called 'Statutory rape'? Or, if not hit puberty yet, 'Child Molestation', and entirely different crimes?

Wouldn't they both be rape though?

[Allanea]

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?

No, but she wasn't 6, was she?

[Poliwanacraca]

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?

No, but she wasn't 6, was she?

So what you're saying is that there is a somewhat arbitrary cut-off point below which someone is too young to legally consent to sexual activity, but the people who decide where that cut-off point is should not be lawmakers or experts on child development, but...you. For no particular reason, other than "because you said so."

Strangely, this argument is not overwhelmingly persuasive.

[Conserative Morality]

Wouldn't they both be rape though?

Different charges, I believe.

[Lizardiar]

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?

No, but she wasn't 6, was she?

If it was, would you still be fighting this hard to get them to be treated like other people living in Miami?

[Allanea]

"Fighting this hard"?

[Conserative Morality]

If it was, would you still be fighting this hard to get them to be treated like other people living in Miami?

I would. They did their time in prison, they're free, let them try and turn their life around.

[Poliwanacraca]

If it was, would you still be fighting this hard to get them to be treated like other people living in Miami?

Some of them did rape 6-year-olds, I'm sure, and I still think it is better for them to be easily located by police and parole officers, and to have reasons to try not to reoffend. I explained this already, as did Mur'v - maybe you should try reading those posts?

[Lizardiar]

If it was, would you still be fighting this hard to get them to be treated like other people living in Miami?

I would. They did their time in prison, they're free, let them try and turn their life around.

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

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

How about giving the sex-offenders the option of wearing a GPS bracelet in exchange for being able to live just a little closer to schools or parks. Say 300 m.

If they walk into that zone, they breach their conditions and it's back out to the bridge.

[The Romulan Republic]

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

I for one can be disgusted with someone and still see the value of granting them basic human rights, for both pragmatic and purely altruistic reasons.

[Saint Jade IV]

In some societies, girls and boys are already married by the age of 16, and an understanding of biology will show that on some visceral level, 16 year olds want to go off on their own to start a family. In other societies, the age of consent is quite high, in some cases over 20. The particular age of consent of a society seems rather arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground.

In some societies, there is no such thing as rape. In some societies, victims of rape are required to marry their rapist. Does that make all laws punishing sexual violence "arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground"?

Most societies recognize that there is a process of development of cognitive and emotional (as well as physical) maturity over time. The fact that we cannot all agree on the exact point that minor becomes capable of consenting to sex does not mean we should just do away with the concept of age of consent. Nor does it excuse those that violate a jurisdictions fairly-enacted laws about the age of consent.

And it could also be added to your fine list that in some societies, mainly the middle east, rape victims are the ones prosecuted and on occassion stoned to death.

"Age of consent" is put in place for a reason. Cat tribe has the right idea. Just because some folk want to get touchy-feely "I feel so bad for the convicted felons, we should bend over backwards for them" is not a good reason to forget that the convicted sex offenders and child molesters are not the victims.

I don't think too many people would disagree with the concept of age of consent. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we bend over backwards. What people are suggesting is that these people are given a fresh start once they have served their time, like any other criminal.

When public urination (and yes I find it indecent in the extreme) can get you on the sex offenders' registry, then I think you need to reexamine your laws. Do you really think it appropriate that someone who took a piss against a tree in a moment of drunken stupidity has their life ruined completely?

Do you really think that anyone deserves to live in these conditions, created by us?

When they are forced into stone-age conditions that we would not keep animals in, then yes, they are victims. They are victims of a knee-jerk response to a hateful crime that will ultimately make them more, not less, likely to reoffend in the future.

In for a penny, in for a pound as they say.

[Poliwanacraca]

If it was, would you still be fighting this hard to get them to be treated like other people living in Miami?

I would. They did their time in prison, they're free, let them try and turn their life around.

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

I think most of us would be disgusted with them, yes. So what?

[Conserative Morality]

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

I would be disgusted by that. I am also disgusted by those who try to rob stores, or houses. However, the jury convicted them, the judge sentenced them to time, and then they get out, and try to turn their lives around. It shouldn't be a life-long punishment, unless the judge deems it necessary to give them a life sentence.