Miami's tent city for sex offenders

[Allanea]

I note cheerfully that in Israel this would not even be a crime.

[Phenia]

I have problems with actual child molesters, I.E. ones that raped children, not teenagers.

But raping teenagers is OK?

[Jocabia]

http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/det ... wanted=all

As long as they calling people like those in the article above sex offenders, I'll never support tougher laws on them.

[Ifreann]

So what? Are you saying that your having a problem with someone is enough of a reason to force them to live in squalor?

If they raped a child, under 13, They can die for all I care. I don't care what you think, it takes a sick monster to rape a child and they can all go to hell.

Whether or not they go to hell is a matter for the Department of Afterlife Assignment. The question is whether they should be forced to live in deplorable conditions. Don't forget, there are more ways to become a sex offender than molesting a child. And even if someone is convicted of molesting a child, that doesn't mean they did it. Do you think its right to condemn every single sex offender to this kind of life just because some of them raped a child?

Further, do you realise what it will mean to continue doing this to sex offenders? I'll tell you. Instead of them going to jail for raping a child, they'll go to jail for raping and murdering a child. If they have no chance of a life worth living if they're caught, then they'll be more willing to kill their victims to cover up their crime. Thing is, it'll work in some cases. It's gonna be that much harder to find the perpetrator without a victim to point him out.

[Allanea]

Or these?

[Saint Jade IV]

This is utterly abhorrent. How can this be allowed to happen to anyone?

They have served their time, paid the debt society told them to pay. If they are still a danger to people, keep them locked up. Change the sentencing to make it harsher. But how dare we pretend to be a civilised society if this is how we treat anyone, regardless of how repulsive their crimes may be. I cannot believe that this would go on.

People, regardless of their crimes are deserving of human rights, like food, water and adequate shelter.

[Saint Jade IV]

So what? Are you saying that your having a problem with someone is enough of a reason to force them to live in squalor?

If they raped a child, under 13, They can die for all I care. I don't care what you think, it takes a sick monster to rape a child and they can all go to hell.

Whether or not they go to hell is a matter for the Department of Afterlife Assignment. The question is whether they should be forced to live in deplorable conditions. Don't forget, there are more ways to become a sex offender than molesting a child. And even if someone is convicted of molesting a child, that doesn't mean they did it. Do you think its right to condemn every single sex offender to this kind of life just because some of them raped a child?

Further, do you realise what it will mean to continue doing this to sex offenders? I'll tell you. Instead of them going to jail for raping a child, they'll go to jail for raping and murdering a child. If they have no chance of a life worth living if they're caught, then they'll be more willing to kill their victims to cover up their crime. Thing is, it'll work in some cases. It's gonna be that much harder to find the perpetrator without a victim to point him out.

I agree with this.

We recently had a debate in Australia about mandatory life sentences for people who have sex with a child under 10 I think. Several convicted paedophiles came out and said that they would be better off killing their victims, since you only get 15 years for murder.

[Phenia]

At first they came for people who molest 12 year old girls, but I didn't speak out...

Now I can understand some of your positions, but not Allanea. How is this different from the conditions of the homeless? Those same conditions that, as near as I can tell, as a libertarian you are against anyone doing anything about?

[Allanea]

THe problem I have here is that not that they're being not-given anything. A lot of these people probably could earn themselves a living, and some already have families and homes where they could live, they're just not allowed to live in those homes.

I don't think you have a right for society to give you something, but I don't think the State should be taking things away from you or preventing you from getting things that you could otherwise get for yourself.

Besides, I have never said I oppose welfare as such. This thread, however, is not about welfare.

[Phenia]

THe problem I have here is that not that they're being not-given anything. A lot of these people probably could earn themselves a living, and some already have families and homes where they could live, they're just not allowed to live in those homes.

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

I don't think you have a right for society to give you something, but I don't think the State should be taking things away from you or preventing you from getting things that you could otherwise get for yourself.

What about when those "things that you could otherwise get for yourself" include children and young teenage sex?

[Derscon]

THe problem I have here is that not that they're being not-given anything. A lot of these people probably could earn themselves a living, and some already have families and homes where they could live, they're just not allowed to live in those homes.

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

I don't think you have a right for society to give you something, but I don't think the State should be taking things away from you or preventing you from getting things that you could otherwise get for yourself.

What about when those "things that you could otherwise get for yourself" include children and young teenage sex?

Are you suggesting children are property? And what's wrong with teenagers having sex, again?

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you suggesting children are property? And what's wrong with teenagers having sex, again?

How is the concept of "age of consent" child slavery, any more than the concept of a minimum age for drinking, driving, living alone, voting, or military service?

[Allanea]

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.

What about when those "things that you could otherwise get for yourself" include children and young teenage sex?

I've already specified in this thread that I believe the way Florida the age of consent ["Fuck anybody younger than 18 and you are an EVIL PEDO!!!!!shiftone] is retarded. There are people incapable of sexual consent. However, setting the barrier that high and then enforcing it by dehumanizing everybody who violates it is insane, unjust, and counterproductive.

Also, what is wrong with teenage sex?

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, what is wrong with teenage sex?

Two teenagers? Nothing. Someone in their early or mid-teens having sex with someone in their forties? A lot.

[Allanea]

Are you suggesting children are property? And what's wrong with teenagers having sex, again?

How is the concept of "age of consent" child slavery, any more than the concept of a minimum age for drinking, driving, living alone, voting, or military service?

We were discussing the process of property.

I pointed out that the fact I don't believe the government should take AWAY the property of some people or their right to gain property peacefully doesn't imply I must necessarily believe the state must GIVE them property.

Then a poster asked why, then, do I believe the state can deny people teen sex.

Derscon then correctly pointed out sex isn't like property.

[Allanea]

Also, what is wrong with teenage sex?

Two teenagers? Nothing. Someone in their early or mid-teens having sex with someone in their forties? A lot.

So there's nothing actually wrong with what the US Marine in the article did. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Dododecapod]

The simple fact: once a person has served their appointed punishment for ANY crime (and I do not give a damn about your personal problems, Lizardiar), they need to be able to return to society and create a new life for themselves. If that isn't the case, then there's NO POINT IN PUNISHING THEM. It's irrelevant, because there's then no reason not to reoffend. Either we allow people the chance to rehabilitate or we start shooting jaywalkers.

[Dododecapod]

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

For any of them who are on probation, IT IS. They CANNOT go elsewhere.

[Derscon]

Also, what is wrong with teenage sex?

Two teenagers? Nothing. Someone in their early or mid-teens having sex with someone in their forties? A lot.

Why?

[The Romulan Republic]

So there's nothing actually wrong with what the US Marine in the article did. Thank you for agreeing with me.

I wouldn't call 28 two teenagers having sex. Try not lying about my statements.

[Allanea]

Dododecapod bring up a valuable point.

If you're branded for life as a subhuman sex offender, impeding your ability to find work, then there's no point at even trying to become part of decent society.

[Allanea]

I wouldn't call 28 two teenagers having sex. Try not lying about my statements.

I wouldn't call '28' the same as 'in his forties', nor '16' - 'mid-teens or early teens'.

[Phenia]

THe problem I have here is that not that they're being not-given anything. A lot of these people probably could earn themselves a living, and some already have families and homes where they could live, they're just not allowed to live in those homes.

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

I don't think you have a right for society to give you something, but I don't think the State should be taking things away from you or preventing you from getting things that you could otherwise get for yourself.

What about when those "things that you could otherwise get for yourself" include children and young teenage sex?

Are you suggesting children are property? And what's wrong with teenagers having sex, again?

Who said anything about property? I was commenting on 'getting things that you could otherwise get,' and sex with children is one of those things. Particularly one of those things you'd be interested in getting, if you had a criminal history of doing so.

Unless you buy into the ludicrous notion that prison "rehabilitates" convicts. Puhleese.

And they can always move elsewhere. Miami, as it turns out, isn't the end-all be-all of the universe or even just the US.

[Hamilay]

I wouldn't call 28 two teenagers having sex. Try not lying about my statements.

I wouldn't call '28' the same as 'in his forties', nor '16' - 'mid-teens or early teens'.

Um, if 'teens' is defined as 13 to 19, I would certainly call 16 'mid-teens'...

[Johnified States]

Why don't they just leave Miami? Seriously, just start walking.