sex offenders lists

[vidcc]

I think we all agree that rapists & paedophiles are evil

More and more lists are being made public of sex offenders. In many countries Mobs have attacked people on these lists, sometime the wrong person just because of a similar name.

The question is:

should communities be given full details of sex offenders in their community, so they can be aware or is it a bad idea that will only lead to vigilante actions.

[vidcc]

I voted yes so we can be aware of potential danger. I don't agree with vigilante actions although i admit if anyone molested my children i would gladly burn the perverts genitals off with a blowlamp if I was allowed to. I will state though that this is a wish and i wouldn't do it in reality because my kids need me at home not in jail.

Fact is that I feel the risk of vigilante actions is far outweighed by the crime comitted by these scum.

Of course there needs to be a tough standard of what constitutes a "sex offender", so that it doesn't include someone that is charged with exposure for streaking at a football game for example.

[NikkiD]

I think they should be made available to the public. We have a right to know who is living in our communities.

I don't entirely agree that vigilante groups against sex offenders are wrong. The law is much too lenient with respect to these monsters (IMHO). Some asshole molests his daughter and gets five or ten years... and his daughter a lifetime of horrendous memories? I don't agree that there is ever a repentance for that. I'd shed no tears to hear that a child molester were beaten to death by an angry mob. If it were my child involved, he'd be dead before he ever got a trial.


Of course there needs to be a tough standard of what constitutes a "sex offender", so that it doesn't include someone that is charged with exposure for streaking at a football game for example.

I completely agree with that statement.

[Rick Phlegm]

I didn't vote, because the whole system regarding sex offenders needs changed.

Prison obviously doesn't change them no matter how long they're inside, but publishing their whereabouts when they get out isn't the answer either. That'd only encourage them to move on and disappear so that the police wouldn't even be able to carry out what little monitoring they do on these people.

It'd also have ordinary people stooping to the level of paedophile "witch-hunts" every time one moved into their area.

[vidcc]

@ rick

that would be... "no...please post your reason" :)

You do of course raise a valid point with them going "underground".... perhaps a case where implanted micro tracking devices overtake human rights?

[baccyman]

they should be castrated before they are released from prison then they would not be a danger to kids.

[NikkiD]

You do of course raise a valid point with them going "underground".... perhaps a case where implanted micro tracking devices overtake human rights?

One has to be human first. :dry: Sorry, touchy subject for me. :(

[Strangelove]

I voted "Yes" however not under the present rules of what puts people on the Sex Offenders lists. (So thats Yes, Post Reason)

I dont class a 17 yr old that has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend the day before her birthday as a "Sex Offender", so i'd want the stupid definitions changed first. (Age of consent is 16 here, before i get hit at by the Americans)

Child Molesters and Rapists, fine... but there would have to be real control over things like "Statutory Rape" and "Flashing" etc...

[vidcc]

One has to be human first. :dry: Sorry, touchy subject for me. :(
oh i agree totally but we have to accept reality :( and such devices would be questioned on human rights issues...i believe that the reason would outweight this particular human right.

@ baccy

Well that would be a totally different subject... however IF they were castrated would you say yes or no to publishing their names etc. ?

[Rick Phlegm]

@ rick

that would be... "no...please post your reason" :)

You do of course raise a valid point with them going "underground".... perhaps a case where implanted micro tracking devices overtake human rights?
So it would, good point :01: :lol:

You've got a point with the trackers as well. I'm of the opinion that you can't apply the same set of rights to all sets of people.

[zedaxax]

complicated question you ask

it has two sides

but in the end its about privacy and danger

[Biggles]

The ideal situation would be to be able to answer Yes. However, the experience to date has been rather unfortunate. One of the Sunday Newspapers tried to lead on this and the result was not good. Several people were attacked and cars and houses burned. Rather ridiculously, the house of a female Paediatrician was also attacked (as if an offender would place their crime as a job title in the phone book :huh: )

Recently, a house in Scotland was subject to similar treatment when it was thought that Maxine Carr was living there. People came from England to beseige the house - the fact that the occupant was a Scottish girl from that town seemed not to deter them once they had decided they had their quarry.

These actions were undertaken by very stupid people and therefore, unsuprisingly perhaps, the wrong people and property were attacked.

The sad fact is that there appears to be a pathetic undercurrent of vigilante mob violence in most societies and these people do not seem to have the ability to handle the kind of responsibility that goes with open information on such things

Arguably information on known drug dealers should also be made available as these people destroy more children's lives than molesters do.

I haven't voted as I would like to vote Yes but can see it wouldn't work and I am reluctant to vote No. :(

[Rick Phlegm]

I haven't voted as I would like to vote Yes but can see it wouldn't work and I am reluctant to vote No. :(
Same with me, but I took the plunge anyway. :D


You all know what I mean tho

[vidcc]

please understand everyone that a "no" vote isn't a vote to "let them get away with it"

[Chewie]

As Biggles has pointed out there are a lot of intellectually challenged people that see a list published by a tabloid and act on their hastily jumped-to conclusions, but I believe that those terrible mistaken-identity incidents would not occur if an official list was published.
The very possibility of sex offenders disappearing is a little alarming until we consider that even when authorities know where these bastards are it does not help prevent these crimes anyway and, let's face it, we'd rather they didn't do it than they did and were caught... prevention is better than cure.

[MagicNakor]

I think they should be made available to the public. We have a right to know who is living in our communities.

I don't entirely agree that vigilante groups against sex offenders are wrong. The law is much too lenient with respect to these monsters (IMHO). Some asshole molests his daughter and gets five or ten years... and his daughter a lifetime of horrendous memories? I don't agree that there is ever a repentance for that. I'd shed no tears to hear that a child molester were beaten to death by an angry mob. If it were my child involved, he'd be dead before he ever got a trial.



I completely agree with that statement.

You're aware that Karla Homolka is being released this summer then? Free to go wherever she pleases. Twelve years kind of crept by quickly.

:shuriken:

[Cheese]

No, people are idiots.

And micro tracking devices? What? :speechless:

Where does it end? Next you'll be tracking former drug dealers, former football hooligans, drinker drivers...until we're all being tracked.

[j2k4]

Chose the 1st "yes" option.

As to vigilantism:

1. Pedophile offends, is caught, tried, convicted, released.

2. Vigilante confronts/abuses/maims/kills pedophile.

3. Vigilante is prosecuted, etc., etc., etc.,.......

The law works, and life goes on...I see no difficulty here.

[cpt_azad]

Yes, so not only can we be aware but because it'll humiliate them enough so they learn their lesson.

[Snee]

What if they get put on one of those lists and it turns out later they didn't do it? Ever so often it happens that someone gets accused of rape when it isn't true and similar. Some people have been known to make that kind of allegations for petty revenge or whatever.

Even if they get proven not guilty, their names'll circulate around on public lists for ages before they get taken off.

Tho' if they get caught redhanded and there are no possible ways to doubt they did what they did I say they ought to be surgically neutered.

EDit: and by allowing such a list to be published, we do open the door to vigilanteism and whatnot, as well as further registration of criminals. Some people are doubtless going to see this as a license to take the law into their own hands as they get a list of targets from the government itself. And where there is people there will be ****ups.

[j2k4]

...where there is people there will be ****ups.

Such is life...

[Snee]

I think I may have ****ed up my grammar right there.

Ah well, where there are people there are also hangovers.

[j2k4]

I think I may have ****ed up my grammar right there.

Ah well, where there are people there are also hangovers.

Yes, there am. :wacko:

[Everose]

My understanding of the disease 'paedophile' is that most of the people that have this disease would rather they didn't. As we would all rather they didn't.

I think until they find a reasonable cure for this disease, letting the public know they live in the area is necessary.

Vigilantes are a separate problem that need to be dealt with. Vigilantes will always find some reason to blindly hate others.

[Busyman]

Chose the 1st "yes" option.

As to vigilantism:

1. Pedophile offends, is caught, tried, convicted, released.

2. Vigilante confronts/abuses/maims/kills pedophile.

3. Vigilante is prosecuted, etc., etc., etc.,.......

The law works, and life goes on...I see no difficulty here.

They may not have control over what urges they have, I don't know. However they choose to offend, when they follow those urges thro'.

Two excellent posts that I agree with. ;)

[vidcc]

wow this thread was resurected from the dead.

Well it appears most wish to know who and where these perverts are.

It does seem that because of the nature of their crime most (myself included) are willing to accept vigilante actions as the price worth paying. I would stipulate however that vigilante actions are unacceptable in any developed society and shows one of the the low sides of human nature.

[Cheese]

I guess if vigilantes had a list they'd stop attacking pediatricians (http://archive.salon.com/sex/world/2000/09/26/vigilante/).

[j2k4]

Exactly, then such mistakes would be less likely.

Yup.

Give the system time to shake stuff out, and it'll right itself. ;)

Busyman:

I've saved your last post to my archive, where it shall reside (probably without company :D ) for the eons to come.

[j2k4]

It made me quite afraid.

I thought my new chair had possibly transported me to a parallel universe, or some such.

A Twilight Zone moment, as it were.

Parallel; exactly.

Per Superman: Bizarro World. :)

[muchspl2]

does the rest of the world have access to internet database of sexually predators like in the US?
We can look up ours, get the addresses and pics, they tell us everything including what they got charged with and how long they served.

[Arm]

I see the sex offender list as bullshit. I wonder how many are on the list are either wrongfully convicted or convicted of bullshit like sodomy or having consensual sex with a minor. :unsure: I also see it as the people who do need to be on the list should be in jail or dead. Child molestors and rapists need a brutal execution. Impaling comes to mind. :shifty:

Who wouldnt wanna impale Michael Jackson just so we can stop hearing about him already? :wacko:

[Busyman]

That's one of those posts which proves the author is a dickhead. Either they believe what they said, or posted it for effect. The end result is the same.
:lol: :lol:

[CloudSeeder]

Lists should not be published, since there should be no lists unless it states on the Head Stone "Here Lies a Sex Offender Beaten to Death by the Victim's Family for His Crime"

[Arm]

That's one of those posts which proves the author is a dickhead. Either they believe what they said, or posted it for effect. The end result is the same.
Eh I pretty much believe it. Impale Jacko. :cool: And I'm not encouraging having sex with minors but I still think the punishment for consensual sex is excessive. ;)

And the internet is a pretty scary place full of people with radically different viewpoints. If you are one who takes things too seriously then you shouldnt travel far on the World Wide Web. :ermm:

[Busyman]

If you even consider the concept of consenting intercourse with a minor being acceptable, then you have a serious problem.

That suggests that a child, groomed from a young age to think of sexual intercourse with adults being a normal and acceptable activity and then consenting to take part in such activity at 10 years old is reasonable.

I take things like this and pricks like you very seriously, both in the real world and on the internet.
JPaul I would hope he was referring to consent between minors.

There was a case where a just-turned 18 year-old in high school got in trouble for having consensual sex with a 15 year-old in the same school.

She initially cried rape because of her racist father. The jury didn't believe her and he was acquitted. The prosecution, however, used a law to stop sexual predators against the black 18 year-old and was thrown in jail.

After 9-months, a judge overturned his conviction citing that the law was grossly misapplied in this case.

[fkdup74]

wow this thread was resurected from the dead.

.....and again :P
(was bored, did some deeper searching in the polls, found one that got my attention)

did I see what i thought I saw? "no" votes? :blink:

those voters must not have children
otherwise you people would see it in a whole new light

personally, the thought of some 50 yr old perv pullin out his willie in front of my 7 yr old daughter...
fills me with such a pure rage that it doesn't even feel human
and I have little doubt of the pain I could inflict on such a sick bastard,
regardless of the circumstances ;)

-edit-
regardless of the punishment as well
of course....I could always hide the evidence....chop him up and bury the pieces....

[MCHeshPants420]

.....and again :P
(was bored, did some deeper searching in the polls, found one that got my attention)

did I see what i thought I saw? "no" votes? :blink:

those voters must not have children
otherwise you people would see it in a whole new light

personally, the thought of some 50 yr old perv pullin out his willie in front of my 7 yr old daughter...
fills me with such a pure rage that it doesn't even feel human
and I have little doubt of the pain I could inflict on such a sick bastard,
regardless of the circumstances ;)

-edit-
regardless of the punishment as well
of course....I could always hide the evidence....chop him up and bury the pieces....


Yes. Everyone who voted 'No' are childless and every sex offender is a man in his fifties.

Really, I'm going to call the stereotype police. :rolleyes:

[fkdup74]

Yes. Everyone who voted 'No' are childless and every sex offender is a man in his fifties.

Really, I'm going to call the stereotype police. :rolleyes:

are you in yer 50s? :ph34r:

:P

[GepperRankins]

personally, the thought of some 50 yr old perv pullin out his willie in front of my 7 yr old daughter...
fills me with such a pure rage that it doesn't even feel human
and I have little doubt of the pain I could inflict on such a sick bastard,
regardless of the circumstances

that's why people voted no

[Afronaut]

snip

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Spurred by the killing of a 9-year-old girl, Gov. Jeb Bush on Monday signed a law imposing tougher penalties on child molesters and requiring many of those released from prison to wear satellite tracking devices for the rest of their lives...

...It establishes a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life behind bars for people convicted of certain sex crimes against children 11 and younger, with lifetime tracking by global positioning satellite after they are freed....

/snip

from:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050502/ap_on_re_us/florida_sex_criminals


Originally I saw this on /. ---> Tracking Sex Offenders via GPS for Life:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/05/02/1814212.shtml?tid=158&tid=17

[fkdup74]

that's why people voted no

indeed, they would rather chance subjecting some innocent child to shit like that,
than to do something about it :dry:

how the hell does this seem right to you?
again I say....fucking liberals...... :angry:



snip

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Spurred by the killing of a 9-year-old girl, Gov. Jeb Bush on Monday signed a law imposing tougher penalties on child molesters and requiring many of those released from prison to wear satellite tracking devices for the rest of their lives...

...It establishes a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life behind bars for people convicted of certain sex crimes against children 11 and younger, with lifetime tracking by global positioning satellite after they are freed....

/snip

way to go Jeb :01:
although I think it should be a longer prison term,
and it should apply to a crime against a minor of any age
just MHO ;)

[GepperRankins]

indeed, they would rather chance subjecting some innocent child to shit like that,
than to do something about it

how the hell does this seem right to you?
again I say....fucking liberals......

it's not right i know. but i don't think they should be hung drawn and quartered. i would like to know who they are to keep an eye on them. unfortunately theres too many people wanting to go on a witch hunt. i don't wanna see these people dead or worse, driven underground.

[MCHeshPants420]

how the hell does this seem right to you?
again I say....fucking liberals...... :angry:


There you go with more labels... :dry:

[fkdup74]

it's not right i know. but i don't think they should be hung drawn and quartered. i would like to know who they are to keep an eye on them. unfortunately theres too many people wanting to go on a witch hunt. i don't wanna see these people dead or worse, driven underground.

oops, my apologies :blushing:

yes I know what you mean about the witch hunt/vigilantism, it's not good :no:
my earlier comment was simply a possible reaction of mine,
should I catch one of those sick mofos in the act
*fkdup sharpens his meat cleaver.... :devil:


There you go with more labels... :dry:
it's only offensive to the easily offended :music:

[Busyman]

indeed, they would rather chance subjecting some innocent child to shit like that,
than to do something about it :dry:

how the hell does this seem right to you?
again I say....fucking liberals...... :angry:




way to go Jeb :01:
although I think it should be a longer prison term,
and it should apply to a crime against a minor of any age
just MHO ;)
I don't think it should apply to "any" minor.

For instance if an 18 year-old and a 16 year-old that go to same school were to have sex, he'd labeled a sex offender and get 25 years in prison.

Other than that, all this vigilantism that everyone speaks of doesn't exist so the argument is also.

All criminal offenses are a matter of public record anyway. It's just this has it's own category.

All arguments to the contrary of having sex offender lists are moot. :dry:

I will have to agree with FKDUP's "fucking liberal" comment.

[GepperRankins]

I don't think it should apply to "any" minor.

For instance if an 18 year-old and a 16 year-old that go to same school were to have sex, he'd labeled a sex offender and get 25 years in prison.

Other than that, all this vigilantism that everyone speaks of doesn't exist so the argument is also.

All criminal offenses are a matter of public record anyway. It's just this has it's own category.

All arguments to the contrary of having sex offender lists are moot. :dry:

I will have to agree with FKDUP's "fucking liberal" comment.
the vigilante-ism does exist. a website i mentioned in funny world about white supremicists has a section called nonce-watch. where they post the name, address and photo of people suspected of being peadophiles, then others beat these people up.

[manker]

Other than that, all this vigilantism that everyone speaks of doesn't exist so the argument is also.Yes it does, and Chebus already posted a link to a report of idiot vigilantism.

Link. (http://archive.salon.com/sex/world/2000/09/26/vigilante/)

RIF?

-----

The point is that people are fallible so publishing lists of paedophiles will contain errors. The fucking liberal concern is that the wrong people will get tarred and feathered.

[ziggyjuarez]

they post the name of address and photo of people suspected of being peadophiles, then others beat these people up.
i know some people who do this in prison (not nazi) and i think its right but outside its just wrong.Firstly because they have already been convicted and you know they did it inside prison.People have no right to beat suspected people.

[Busyman]

Yes it does, and Chebus already posted a link to a report of idiot vigilantism.

Link. (http://archive.salon.com/sex/world/2000/09/26/vigilante/)

RIF?

-----

The point is that people are fallible so publishing lists of paedophiles will contain errors. The fucking liberal concern is that the wrong people will get tarred and feathered.
Let me clarify. It doesn't exist to any extent that laws should be enacted to NOT make notification of pedophiles to everyone.

Of course vigilantism exists. It exists without the lists ffs.

The good thing in America is that their photo is published too. :shifty:

[manker]

Let me clarify. It doesn't exist to any extent that laws should be enacted to NOT make notification of pedophiles to everyone.

Of course vigilantism exists. It exists without the lists ffs.Okay, so how many pediatricians and innocent people have to get beaten up and incorrectly labelled as the scum of the earth and have their lives completely ruined before you think there's a problem.

I say one is too many. What do the non-fucking-liberals think.

[GepperRankins]

i can't really say it's wrong. maybe because they'll get me, or maybe...

i see why it's happening in britain. there's a sense that the police are useless and the criminal justice system works against the innocent victim, hence people feel the need to take the law into their own hands. this fueled by sensationalist red-tops(newspapers for idiots and chavs) turning idiots into paranoid idiots :dry:

edit: so i can say it's wrong, but i understand the reasoning

[manker]

Hoi! I read sensationalist red-tops :(

[MCHeshPants420]

Let me clarify. It doesn't exist to any extent that laws should be enacted to NOT make notification of pedophiles to everyone.


Is that a fact or are you just "shooting shit"?

[GepperRankins]

Hoi! I read sensationalist red-tops as long as you don't

take them seriously :ermm:

[Busyman]

Okay, so how many pediatricians and innocent people have to get beaten up and incorrectly labelled as the scum of the earth and have their lives completely ruined before you think there's a problem.

I say one is too many. What do the non-fucking-liberals think.
I can't believe you brought forth an example of idiots that can't sppell as a reason to NOT publish a list.

That example didn't even involve a list ffs. :lol: :lol: (nor the one in the article about a fella who lived alone :dry: )

RIF?

[Busyman]

Is that a fact or are you just "shooting shit"?
It's an opinion. :blink:

[GepperRankins]

I can't believe you brought forth an example of idiots that can't sppell as a reason to NOT publish a list.

That example didn't even involve a list ffs. :lol: :lol: (nor the one in the article about a fella who lived alone :dry: )

RIF?
it's the reason not to do it. you are the reason not to do it, i can tell by the way you argue

[manker]

I can't believe you brought forth an example of idiots that can't sppell as a reason to NOT publish a list.

That example didn't even involve a list ffs. :lol: :lol: (nor the one in the article about a fella who lived alone :dry: )

RIF?You said vigilantism doesn't exist, I posted that link to prove that it does. Googling for a new vigilante link just to prove you were spouting shite didn't seem necessary when one had been posted earlier in the thread.

Do I really need to provide an example of how publishing lists can increase levels of vigilantism, or can you work that out for yourself.

[manker]

as long as you don't

take them seriously :ermm:I read them to keep in touch with the common man :snooty:


... actually it's for the soccer - The Sun <3 Man Utd.

[MCHeshPants420]

It's an opinion. :blink:

You say tomato...

[GepperRankins]

i suppose it's ok for sport and abi titmus, however it's spelt.

[MCHeshPants420]

I can't believe you brought forth an example of idiots that can't sppell as a reason to NOT publish a list.

That example didn't even involve a list ffs. :lol: :lol: (nor the one in the article about a fella who lived alone :dry: )

RIF?

I prefer that when an angry mob has been whipped up by the press and other influences that they don't have the addresses of pedophiles. Particularly the sort of people who can't spell ffs.

[MCHeshPants420]

i suppose it's ok for sport and abi titmus, however it's spelt.

I read The Guardian. Well I say read, I mean I carry it around with me to look clever (and to pull the student chix). :shifty:

[Busyman]

You said vigilantism doesn't exist, I posted that link to prove that it does. Googling for a new vigilante link just to prove you were spouting shite didn't seem necessary when one had been posted earlier in the thread.

Do I really need to provide an example of how publishing lists can increase levels of vigilantism, or can you work that out for yourself.
Not necessary. In that same link there was an instance of posting a list led to idiots beating down folks with the same surnames.

Still not a reason to not publish a list.

As far as whether vigilantism merely exists or not, why are you still going back to something clarified? :huh:

As I said before, criminal records are a matter of public record.

RIF?

[GepperRankins]

i was just thinking i should start reading the guardian to look clever :ohmy:

[GepperRankins]

Not necessary. In that same link there was an instance of posting a list led to idiots beating down folks with the same surnames.

Still not a reason to not publish a list.

As far as whether vigilantism merely exists or not, why are you still going back to something clarified? :huh:

As I said before, criminal records are a matter of public record.

RIF?
wow! you just made me feel really stupid, not because you have a point

because i just shouted "yes it is you dick!" at my monitor :dry:

[manker]

I read The Guardian. Well I say read, I mean I carry it around with me to look clever (and to pull the student chix). :shifty:Richard Littlejohn (Sun Columnist and full time chubby beardy bloke) says that Guardian readers are middle class, soft soaping idiots who probably work in the civil service.

Edit: I hear that he thinks that, since I only read the footie.


I get the Times delivered to the office everyday but I never read it 'cos it's so fucking boring. Sometimes I have to read the financial bit tho' :dry:

[Busyman]

I prefer that when an angry mob has been whipped up by the press and other influences that they don't have the addresses of pedophiles. Particularly the sort of people who can't spell ffs.
The press should be liable then.

One could do the same with a door-to-door newsletter, a meeting or a whisper in the ear.

Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.

[GepperRankins]

Richard Littlejohn (Sun Columnist and full time chubby beardy bloke) says that Guardian readers are middle class, soft soaping idiots who probably work in the civil service.

Edit: I hear that he thinks that, since I only read the footie.


I get the Times delivered to the office everyday but I never read it 'cos it's so fucking boring. Sometimes I have to read the financial bit tho' :dry:
their theory is vote labour to stop yourself reaching middle class, then? :dry:

[manker]

Not necessary. In that same link there was an instance of posting a list led to idiots beating down folks with the same surnames.

Still not a reason to not publish a list.

As far as whether vigilantism merely exists or not, why are you still going back to something clarified? :huh:

As I said before, criminal records are a matter of public record.

RIF?I went back to it 'cause you referred to it.

Lists of pedophiles that are available to everyone can only increase the number of attacks on innocent people.

You think that's okay.

If it makes me a fucking liberal to say that it's wrong then I must be a fucking liberal.

[MCHeshPants420]

Not necessary. In that same link there was an instance of posting a list led to idiots beating down folks with the same surnames.

Still not a reason to not publish a list.


Innocent people getting beaten up doesn't worry you?

You do realise how damaging it could be to someone to be labelled a pedophile don't you? Even when they are later proven to not be one the shit will still stick if you ken what I mean.

[manker]

their theory is vote labour to stop yourself reaching middle class, then? :dry:Duno, I never read it. Pages are too big and the writing is too small :unsure:

[MCHeshPants420]

Richard Littlejohn (Sun Columnist and full time chubby beardy bloke) says that Guardian readers are middle class, soft soaping idiots who probably work in the civil service.



Well, I'm a student so the soap bit doesn't apply. But the rest is spot on (my mum works in teh civil service). :ermm:

[MCHeshPants420]

Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.

Yes, but that's irrelevant.

Edit: And really, repeating something five times? That is so childish. :lol:

[manker]

Well, I'm a student so the soap bit doesn't apply. But the rest is spot on (my mum works in teh civil service). :ermm:Shit, I meant to say that you've bucked the trend but it seems I didn't write that :huh:

[Busyman]

Yes, but that's irrelevant.

Edit: And really, repeating something five times? That is so childish. :lol:
Oh well.....

Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.

So you think all criminal records should be sealed and court cases should be held in secret? :huh:

[Busyman]

Well, I'm a student so the soap bit doesn't apply. :sick:

[MCHeshPants420]

Oh well.....

Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.
Criminal records are public record.

So you think all criminal records should be sealed and court cases should be held in secret? :huh:

No, because that would be very stupid. And it's completely irrelevant kiddo.

[fkdup74]

Innocent people getting beaten up doesn't worry you?

having a sexual predator move in next door to you wouldn't worry you,
if you had a young child? :blink:

you wouldn't want at least the chance to protect your child? :blink:

and I am not talking about assembling a mob to burn the alleged paedo's house down....
just the knowledge that there may be a risk, so you can take precautions

I find nothing wrong with that :blink:

I am quite sure that the vigilante population is a minority,
we're not talking about 99% of the people going bugshit and killing people
they'll be caught and delt with if they cross the line,
and if they happen to take a sick bastard off the face of the earth, so what?


oh wait, killing is wrong, I forgot, even if it is in defense of a child's innocense :dry:

[Busyman]

No, because that would be very stupid. And it's completely irrelevant kiddo.
Hmmm seems relevent to me.

You don't want folks spouting off about someone's criminal record yet you still want criminal records to be public.

Time to do some rethinkin' little boy.

[MCHeshPants420]

Hmmm seems relevent to me.

You don't want folks spouting off about someone's criminal records yet you still criminal records to be public.

Time to do some rethinkin' little boy.

Giving a list to people is different. We should also have lists for all criminals then.

[MCHeshPants420]

having a sexual predator move in next door to you wouldn't worry you,
if you had a young child? :blink:

you wouldn't want at least the chance to protect your child? :blink:



Due to the sad nature of the world we live in I'd protect my child as much as I can anyhow.

[Busyman]

Giving a list to people is different. We should also have lists for all criminals then.
If if it's public then a list can be made. What are you on? :blink:

[manker]

having a sexual predator move in next door to you wouldn't worry you,
if you had a young child? :blink:

you wouldn't want at least the chance to protect your child? :blink:

and I am not talking about assembling a mob to burn the alleged paedo's house down....
just the knowledge that there may be a risk, so you can take precautions

I find nothing wrong with that :blink:

I am quite sure that the vigilante population is a minority,
we're not talking about 99% of the people going bugshit and killing people
they'll be caught and delt with if they cross the line,
and if they happen to take a sick bastard off the face of the earth, so what?


oh wait, killing is wrong, I forgot, even if it is in defense of a child's innocense :dry:
You're missing the point, while you say that you wouldn't wish for the bloke's house to be burnt down, other folk - indeed organised groups of folk - would want his house burnt down.

Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your child, I feel the same way but there is the flip side to consider, if some sick bastard was taken off the face of the earth but it was later discovered that the 'sick bastard' was a law abiding citizen and his place on the list was due to a computer glitch then I assume you'll think this is unacceptable. It could be your friend or a family member that was the victim of some paedophile list cock-up.

I'd prefer that the authorities knew of all paedophiles and were keeping an eye on them rather than having vigilantes drive the individual 'underground' where no monitoring is possible.

[GepperRankins]

having a sexual predator move in next door to you wouldn't worry you,
if you had a young child? :blink:

you wouldn't want at least the chance to protect your child? :blink:

and I am not talking about assembling a mob to burn the alleged paedo's house down....
just the knowledge that there may be a risk, so you can take precautions

I find nothing wrong with that :blink:

I am quite sure that the vigilante population is a minority,
we're not talking about 99% of the people going bugshit and killing people
they'll be caught and delt with if they cross the line,
and if they happen to take a sick bastard off the face of the earth, so what?


oh wait, killing is wrong, I forgot, even if it is in defense of a child's innocense :dry:

the fact that there is anyone that would burn down someones house on suspicion of them being a peadophile is the problem. if people really look after their kids i reckon they'll be ok. not to jusify the case for peadophiles but i think parents should take more responsibilty educating, laying down curfews and seeing what their children actually do in their spare time.

[GepperRankins]

Giving a list to people is different. We should also have lists for all criminals then.
yeah! i want a list of burglars, not that i want to break their little smackhead legs or anything :dry:

[MCHeshPants420]

If if it's public then a list can be made. What are you on? :blink:

You've got a stutter.

So why do people need a list then? Why can't they just make their own?

[Busyman]

You've got a stutter.

So why do people need a list then? Why can't they just make their own?
WWWhat r uuuu tttalking about?

People do make their own lists. Sometimes they go door to door and/or publish a newsletter when a sexual offender moves in the neighborhood.

[manker]

WWWhat r uuuu tttalking about?

People do make their own lists. Sometimes they go door to door and/or publish a newsletter when a sexual offender moves in the neighborhood.Not in the UK they don't and not in some states of the US they don't.

Only the authorities have access to the sex-offenders register.



Otherwise why would there have been a huge campaign over here to publish the addresses of paedophiles. If they were already available then it would appear to be pretty pointless.

Either hundreds of thousands of people are idiots or you're wrong.

[vidcc]

Ok to inject some new slant for those that wish the list to be published (I am one of them) do you think the penalty in law should be hard or soft on the vigilantes? and do you think that the police should put every effort into bringing these people to justice?


I voted yes so we can be aware of potential danger. I don't agree with vigilante actions although I admit if anyone molested my children I would gladly burn the perverts genitals off with a blow lamp if I was allowed to. I will state though that this is a wish and I wouldn't do it in reality because my kids need me at home not in jail.

I do realise that when mobs form they are not rational and there is no excuse for such actions even though as I said I fully understand the passion behind the actions.
One innocent casualty is unacceptable so I believe the full weight of the law should be brought down on vigilantes.

Of course paedophiles shouldn't be released back into the community in the first place..... If the law protected us properly in the first place we wouldn't have this thread. :angry:

[GepperRankins]

Either hundreds of thousands of people are idiots or you're wrong.


could go either way :unsure:

[manker]

Ok to inject some new slant for those that wish the list to be published (I am one of them) do you think the penalty in law should be hard or soft on the vigilantes? and do you think that the police should put every effort into bringing these people to justice?


I do realise that when mobs form they are not rational and there is no excuse for such actions even though as I said I fully understand the passion behind the actions.
One innocent casualty is unacceptable so I believe the full weight of the law should be brought down on vigilantes.

Of course paedophiles shouldn't be released back into the community in the first place..... If the law protected us properly in the first place we wouldn't have this thread. :angry:The law is the law and should be adhered to. If you get 5 years for GBH because you beat up some bloke in the pub, then you should get 5 years for beating up a paedophile.

If leniency is shown just because you suspected someone of being a paedophile then it could be used as a defence for other occasions.

"You see, your honour, I thought he was a nonce so I hit him - go easy on me, eh?"

Treating vigilantes in a preferable manner when sentencing can only increase vigilante behaviour, which presumably most sane people would want to avoid.

[Busyman]

Not in the UK they don't and not in some states of the US they don't.

Only the authorities have access to the sex-offenders register.



Otherwise why would there have been a huge campaign over here to publish the addresses of paedophiles. If they were already available then it would appear to be pretty pointless.

Either hundreds of thousands of people are idiots or you're wrong.
We have a winner (finally)!!!

The who and the what is very public. Where they live isn't (besides the offenders register) . However, that also can be found through public records albeit different types of records.
btw, I don't know of UK laws. I know how it is here.

So yes hundred of thousands of people are idiots.

@vid - that's a no-brainer. However, juries will be juries.

[manker]

We have a winner (finally)!!!

The who and the what is very public. Where they live isn't (besides the offenders register) . However, that also can be found through public records albeit different types of records.
btw, I don't know of UK laws. I know how it is here.

So yes hundred of thousands of people are idiots.No, you're just plain wrong.

It is currently impossible for me to find out if there is a paedophile living in my street, this I know for certain. Unless I was a head-teacher or a youth worker ... or something like that.

Yes, crimes and the names of the people who commited them are available to the public but their location is unknown. I might know that Tom Smith abused a six year old in 1987 but as to whether that is the same Tom Smith that lives down the road from me, I have no idea.


This is the crux of the whole matter - I don't know if my next door neighbour is a paedophile and I have no way of finding out. A published list of paedophiles would give me a means to do that - but not only me, organised groups of vigilantes who aren't choosy about the people they target.

Btw,
However, that also can be found through public records albeit different types of records. What fecking records :blink:

[MCHeshPants420]

We have a winner (finally)!!!

The who and the what is very public. Where they live isn't (besides the offenders register) . However, that also can be found through public records albeit different types of records.


Which was my point really, the public records are irrelevant because they wouldn't show where these people live. They're just a record of offence, court details, etc.

First you try to convince people that things are already a matter of public record now you are back-pedalling.



Edit: Just to make sure, you do know what this thread is about don't you?

[MCHeshPants420]

Of course paedophiles shouldn't be released back into the community in the first place..... If the law protected us properly in the first place we wouldn't have this thread. :angry:

So we're just ignoring the fact that people can be reformed and not be a danger to the community?

[manker]

Which was my point really, the public records are irrelevant because they wouldn't show where these people live. They're just a record of offence, court details, etc.Aye, sorry about that, chief.

It was just doing my head in that Busy, either deliberately or not, wasn't getting the point.

[Busyman]

No, you're just plain wrong.

It is currently impossible for me to find out if there is a paedophile living in my street, this I know for certain. Unless I was a head-teacher or a youth worker ... or something like that.

Yes, crimes and the names of the people who commited them are available to the public but their location is unknown. I might know that Tom Smith abused a six year old in 1987 but as to whether that is the same Tom Smith that lives down the road from me, I have no idea.


This is the crux of the whole matter - I don't know if my next door neighbour is a paedophile and I have no way of finding out. A published list of paedophiles would give me a means to do that - but not only me, organised groups of vigilantes who aren't choosy about the people they target.

Btw, What fecking records :blink:
If one bothered they can search state by state via name only and cross reference a number of things such as home sales, employment records, etc.

Many PI's do shit that the public can do but just don't know how (or bother to learn).

So no...you're wrong. :dry:

[Busyman]

So we're just ignoring the fact that people can be reformed and not be a danger to the community?
The point is that many of them are not reformed but have served their time.

Many of them can't help themselves so we say to them, ok we'll let you out of jail, but we are watching you.

Many pedophiles know these consequences going in yet still commit their crimes. I say they face those consequences including being ostracized if so.

[manker]

If one bothered they can search state by state via name only and cross reference a number of things such as home sales, employment records, etc.

Many PI's do shit that the public can do but just don't know how (or bother to learn).

So no...you're wrong. :dry:We don't have states here.

The public are provided with insufficient information, quite deliberately, to be able to trace sex-offenders to their home address with any degree of assurity. This, of course, is to prevent vigilantism. It is also the reason that people protest against it over here.

I reckon you're talking about something you know feck all about. A google search for an employment record - which is totally confidential over here, btw - would be pointless if you only had a name and an offence to cross reference with. You might, possibly, strike it lucky with Theopolis P. Wildebeeste who downloaded some dodgy pr0n in 1999 but you'd never track John Smith who defiled a minor in 1972.

Again, the point is that these lists will provide everyone with the means to find every paedophile. The current system, in the UK, simply doesn't do that.

This is not supposition, it's fact.


A national newspaper campaigned for six months, before a comprimise was reached, to implement 'Sarah's Law' - an equivilent of the US Megan's Law. If they could have just googled for the info, that's what they'd have done.

[JPaul]

The sex offenders register should be a matter of public record and available to view. I believe that the right of people to know who convicted sex offenders are outweighs their right to privacy.

Details of where sex offenders live should also be available, for the same reason. Contrary to popular opinion I want to protect my children and knowing of potential dangers in the area would assist in that.

As manker said, crimes should be treated with the same degree of severity. GBH is GBH and should be treated as such. However in Scotland we now make an exception for race related crime. I don't know if I agree with this but I feel in my water that I do. It just seems right. I certainly wouldn't allow the person being a previous sex offender as mitigation.

Knowledge of sex offenders location = Good

Vigilantism = Bad

[Busyman]

We don't have states here.

The public are provided with insufficient information, quite deliberately, to be able to trace sex-offenders to their home address with any degree of assurity. This, of course, is to prevent vigilantism. It is also the reason that people protest against it over here.

I reckon you're talking about something you know feck all about. A google search for an employment record - which is totally confidential over here, btw - would be pointless if you only had a name and an offence to cross reference with. You might, possibly, strike it lucky with Theopolis P. Wildebeeste who downloaded some dodgy pr0n in 1999 but you'd never track John Smith who defiled a minor in 1972.

Again, the point is that these lists will provide everyone with the means to find every paedophile. The current system, in the UK, simply doesn't do that.

This is not supposition, it's fact.


A national newspaper campaigned for six months, before a comprimise was reached, to implement 'Sarah's Law' - an equivilent of the US Megan's Law. If they could have just googled for the info, that's what they'd have done.
Aww shit dude.

I'm talking from a US perspective....quite obviously.

I don't think we have this vigilantism problem against pedophiles like the UK. I even thought the article you pointed out would have been US related stuff yet it had shit about beating peoples ass with the same name. Stupid people will always do dumb shit.

Over here we know where they reside and what they look like and that's good enough. Then again, I'm part of a large metropolitan area and not some small hick town.

[Busyman]

The sex offenders register should be a matter of public record and available to view. I believe that the right of people to know who convicted sex offenders are outweighs their right to privacy.

Details of where sex offenders live should also be available, for the same reason. Contrary to popular opinion I want to protect my children and knowing of potential dangers in the area would assist in that.

As manker said, crimes should be treated with the same degree of severity. GBH is GBH and should be treated as such. However in Scotland we now make an exception for race related crime. I don't know if I agree with this but I feel in my water that I do. It just seems right. I certainly wouldn't allow the person being a previous sex offender as mitigation.

Knowledge of sex offenders location = Good

Vigilantism = Bad
Great post!!!

I don't agree with changing the law just because of the actions of idiots to benefit ex-convicts.

[manker]

Aww shit dude.

I'm talking from a US perspective....quite obviously.

I don't think we have this vigilantism problem against pedophiles like the UK. I even thought the article you pointed out would have been US related stuff yet it had shit about beating peoples ass with the same name. Stupid people will always do dumb shit.

Over here we know where they reside and what they look like and that's good enough. Then again, I'm part of a large metropolitan area and not some small hick town.Alrighty then. So you'll agree that Chebus' assertion that your point, which you repeated to Chebus at least seven times, is in fact, totally irrelevent. Since, quite obviously, he was speaking from a UK perspective.


Btw, I'm pretty sure that it is only a minority of states in the US who have full access to the sex offenders list. The other states are pretty much on the same page as us.

[manker]

The sex offenders register should be a matter of public record and available to view. I believe that the right of people to know who convicted sex offenders are outweighs their right to privacy.

Details of where sex offenders live should also be available, for the same reason. Contrary to popular opinion I want to protect my children and knowing of potential dangers in the area would assist in that.

As manker said, crimes should be treated with the same degree of severity. GBH is GBH and should be treated as such. However in Scotland we now make an exception for race related crime. I don't know if I agree with this but I feel in my water that I do. It just seems right. I certainly wouldn't allow the person being a previous sex offender as mitigation.

Knowledge of sex offenders location = Good

Vigilantism = BadI suppose I can see your point but still, the lists will clearly lead to vigilantism. Innocent people will get beaten up (or worse), obscenities daubed on their homes and their lives/reputations will be ruined. Also there is the point of paedophiles being driven 'underground' because they're scared of the vigilantism. Where presumably they will meet people of the same ilk.

To obfuscate (:happy:) matters further, to catagorise all offenders by putting them in one big list is wrong. That would mean putting Pete Townshend, for example, in the same catagory as Rose West. Some guy who had sex with a fifteen year old because he was drunk and she said in the pub that she was older will be put on the same list as serial child abusers.

If some sex-offenders weren't to be put on the list then this would also cause problems as where do you draw the line between an offence 'bad' enough to get you listed and one that is deemed to be not quite serious enough.



Having one big list is fraught with too many difficulties for me to think it's a good idea.

[Busyman]

Here's (http://www.prisonerlife.com/articles/articleID=42.cfm) something to bolster your argument.

[manker]

Here's (http://www.prisonerlife.com/articles/articleID=42.cfm) something to bolster your argument.Meh, I already know I'm right ;)


I might read it when I get home, tho'.

[Busyman]

Meh, I already know I'm right ;)


I might read it when I get home, tho'.
Right about what?

If a police officer shoots an innocent person by (accident or on purpose) that's not a reason to rid ALL police forces of guns. :blink:

[JPaul]

I suppose I can see your point but still, the lists will clearly lead to vigilantism. Innocent people will get beaten up (or worse), obscenities daubed on their homes and their lives/reputations will be ruined. Also there is the point of paedophiles being driven 'underground' because they're scared of the vigilantism. Where presumably they will meet people of the same ilk.

To obfuscate (:happy:) matters further, to catagorise all offenders by putting them in one big list is wrong. That would mean putting Pete Townshend, for example, in the same catagory as Rose West. Some guy who had sex with a fifteen year old because he was drunk and she said in the pub that she was older will be put on the same list as serial child abusers.

If some sex-offenders weren't to be put on the list then this would also cause problems as where do you draw the line between an offence 'bad' enough to get you listed and one that is deemed to be not quite serious enough.



Having one big list is fraught with too many difficulties for me to think it's a good idea.


All good points and well made. As with many things however we must create a balance, answers to these questions are seldom black and white. Hate to be all buzz-wordy but it really is a risk assesment / proportionality thing. I simply feel that on balance it is better to publish than not. Particularly when the person whose privacy is violated is a convicted offender and the person at risk is an innocent child, woman or whatever.

With regard to the vigilantism, that is a matter for the Police. They must prosecute the offenders and a the Courts who must sentence appropriately. I know it isn't the Police who actually prosecute, but this keeps it simpler and on point.

As to who goes on the list, I can see your point, but I don't have the same problem. The list will include what they were convicted of, so it will be clear who did what.

It is a simple thing for me, their rights to privacy diminished when they commited the offence, that was their choice. Our right to know who they are remains and outweighs their right.

I'm afraid I then see the potential vigilante as an entirely sperate issue. Certainly not big enough to swing the scale (mix me no metaphors) back in their favour.

[Busyman]

Having one big list is fraught with too many difficulties for me to think it's a good idea.
Well that's a different thing that I do agree with.

The example of the fella in high school is a case for not being grouped with serial abusers.

I think his label would say Statutory Rape or Sex With A Minor.

[bigboab]

As we can see by the posts it is a very complex situation. I dont agree that these list should be made public, for the various reasons already stated. Before thinking of a solution you have to remember that most paedophiles never come to court. The offences take place within the family and most families 'hush' the situation. These people are already in your area. :(

My own opinion is that over and above the present conditions all families with children should be informed that a paedophile has moved into their area. Though the name and address should not be revealed. At least then parents would be more alert and vigilantism would be kept to a minimum.

Personally life on an island in the middle of the Atlantic with no visiting rights and no parole would be my ideal solution. Feeding them would be an option. :angry:

[JPaul]

Personally life on an island in the middle of the Atlantic with no visiting rights and no parole would be my ideal solution. Feeding them would be an option. :angry:
I would allow them to work to earn food and water. Other than that I have no problem with your solution.

[Busyman]

As we can see by the posts it is a very complex situation. I dont agree that these list should be made public, for the various reasons already stated. Before thinking of a solution you have to remember that most paedophiles never come to court. The offences take place within the family and most families 'hush' the situation. These people are already in your area. :(

My own opinion is that over and above the present conditions all families with children should be informed that a paedophile has moved into their area. Though the name and address should not be revealed. At least then parents would be more alert and vigilantism would be kept to a minimum.

Personally life on an island in the middle of the Atlantic with no visiting rights and no parole would be my ideal solution. Feeding them would be an option. :angry:
Is vigilantism that high over in the UK? Even with the fact that you don't already publish the names and addresses?

Tbh I can't remember the offenders on the list for my area besides the fella down the street.

[bigboab]

Is vigilantism that high over in the UK? Even with the fact that you don't already publish the names and addresses?

I dont know about other areas. But I have seen three innocent people hunted out of house and home in this area in the last 15 years. The real paedophiles were eventually caught. :) Of course everyone said that they were sorry and how were they to know. I have found most vigilantes who had no personal involvement in cases were only doing it to appear 'big' in the community.

[JPaul]

Tbh I can't remember the offenders on the list for my area besides the fella down the street.
Tbh he is the one who would stick in your mind.

Which is kind of the point, I'm sure you would agree.

[JPaul]

I dont know about other areas. But I have seen three innocent people hunted out of house and home in this area in the last 15 years. The real paedophiles were eventually caught. :) Of course everyone said that they were sorry and how were they to know. I have found most vigilantes who had no personal involvement in cases were only doing it to appear 'big' in the community.
1 every 5 years, to my mind is not enough reason not to publish the list.

Particularly if the "vigilantes" are dealt with as the criminals they are. Which would hopefully reduce the figure to none.

[Busyman]

Tbh he is the one who would stick in your mind.

Which is kind of the point, I'm sure you would agree.
Sorta but there are 3 in the immediate area.

I think it's the way they look and I remember one being a woman.
The felladown the street looks fuckign weird.

I will try to find the link.

[JPaul]

Sorta but there are 3 in the immediate area.

I think it's the way they look and I remember one being a woman.
The felladown the street looks fuckign weird.

I will try to find the link.
It's the ones who look entirely normal who are of greater concern.

The "who would have guessed" brigade.

[Busyman]

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!

I see 2 fellas that I've played basketball with on that fucking list!!!!!

One is for Child Sex Abuse (even though he's young as shit himself) and one for 3rd Degree Sex Offense (he's older)!!!! :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

They are both younger than me though. I wonder at what age they commited these offenses.

The older one is the same one always talking about all the bitches he gonna fuck and last year got a DUI.

He said he learned his lesson (the DUI) though but this is some shocking shit.
:ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

[bigboab]

It's the ones who look entirely normal who are of greater concern.

The "who would have guessed" brigade.

I agree JP. I remember a fellow who was a church elder, delivered all the old folks papers before he went to work in the morning. Pillar of society. One day he was off work and they required something he kept. They broke open his locker and found a cache of pics of young girls in various poses. It turned out he was not alone and a few others were also involved. He got the jail but I am not sure about the others.

I also remember a fellow in a village who was caught stealing boys underwear from lines. I heard later that he had been elected a tory councillor and was in charge of the village boys team. He was also the school janitor. It seems that some people turn a blind eye. :(

[JPaul]

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!

I see 2 fellas that I've played basketball with on that fucking list!!!!!

One is for Child Sex Abuse (even though he's young as shit himself) and one for 3rd Degree Sex Offense (he's older)!!!! :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

They are both younger than me though. I wonder at what age they commited these offenses.

The older one is the same one always talking about all the bitches he gonna fuck and last year got a DUI.

He said he learned his lesson (the DUI) though but this is some shocking shit.
:ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:


I don't know about the USA, but in the UK convictions are in the public domain. You should be able to find out what offences and when they were convicted.

[fkdup74]

1 every 5 years, to my mind is not enough reason not to publish the list.

TY JPaul :)

weigh that number against the number of children abused by repeat offenders ;)

and to the opposition....you only fear that more vigilantism will result,
and so take the stance that it will happen, and that's utter bullshit IMO
so we risk the children to protect convicts? :blink:
a child that, probably, has done no more harm than break his/her sibling's G.I.Joe? :blink:

ffs ppl, this has to be one of the saddest threads I have ever seen,
and no, not because you disagree with those for the publishing,
but because you risk innocent children in your disagreement

ok I made a smartass remark about it before, but now it's an honest question:
how many of you opposed actually have children?

-edit- spelling :wacko:

oh yeah, and I have no beef with vigilantes getting strict punishment,
especially in the case where it's not an "impulse crime" or whatever they wanna label it,
i.e. the person's own child was not involved

[JPaul]

ok I made a smartass remark about it before, but now it's an honest question:
how many of you opposed actually have children?
Sorry, but I think that is irrelevant.

Me having children does not make me have a "bigger" vote than those who do not.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and is entitled to voice it. Much as I will pour scorn on them for doing so.

[fkdup74]

Sorry, but I think that is irrelevant.

Me having children does not make me have a "bigger" vote than those who do not.

didn't mean it in that sense JP
I dont feel I have a bigger say just because of my children,
just think that perhaps it can change your perspective somewhat,
I know it has me

[Busyman]

I don't know about the USA, but in the UK convictions are in the public domain. You should be able to find out what offences and when they were convicted.
Way ahead a ya bud.

This is the site I looked at.

http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/sorSearch/

[Busyman]

didn't mean it in that sense JP
I dont feel I have a bigger say just because of my children,
just think that perhaps it can change your perspective somewhat,
I know it has me
Same here.

A little girl at that.

[JPaul]

didn't mean it in that sense JP
I dont feel I have a bigger say just because of my children,
just think that perhaps it can change your perspective somewhat,
I know it has me
Indeed, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't think it changed ny opinion, but then my oldest is 19, so I can't really comment on whether it did or not.

[JPaul]

Same here.

A little girl at that.
I hear what you say and have a daughter myself.

However, as I understand it young boys are more at risk. When I say young I mean at the infant stage.

I could be wrong in this, it is just something I read.

[bigboab]

1 every 5 years, to my mind is not enough reason not to publish the list.

Particularly if the "vigilantes" are dealt with as the criminals they are. Which would hopefully reduce the figure to none.

I understand the perpetrators are out now. But those innocent folk have the stigma for the rest of their lifes. That is too much of a price to pay for knowledge that will do you no good unless you want to take the law into your own hands. You should always be on alert as far as your children are concerned no matter who your neighbour is. I remeber reporting a suspicious chracter who was hanging about the school. The police said there was nothing they could do unless he broke the law. This was before the new laws came into force.

On your other point. I dont have the statistics but I think very young girls and boys around puberty are the most at risk. :(

[fkdup74]

Indeed, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't think it changed ny opinion, but then my oldest is 19, so I can't really comment on whether it did or not.

nah, no apology necessary :)
I see how my comment may have been misinterpreted, (sp?)
I just couldn't be arsed to explain myself :P

[MCHeshPants420]

TY JPaul :)

weigh that number against the number of children abused by repeat offenders ;)


I'm going to weigh anecdotal evidence against what? You say there is a number but erm...I don't see it anywhere?


and to the opposition....you only fear that more vigilantism will result,
and so take the stance that it will happen, and that's utter bullshit IMO
so we risk the children to protect convicts? :blink:

A convict is someone who is in prison I believe.

Now protecting innocent people is important. But so is protecting the human rights of those who have done their time and are not going to reoffend. Remember not everyone is going to be a repeat offender.



ffs ppl, this has to be one of the saddest threads I have ever seen,
and no, not because you disagree with those for the publishing,
but because you risk innocent children in your disagreement

This bit is why I even bothered to come back to this discussion when I should be working. That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read on this forum. And I used to read Yogi's posts.

How is me disagreeing with someone's fucking opinion risking innocent children? You can ignore the rest of my points and answer that. Idiot.




ok I made a smartass remark about it before, but now it's an honest question:
how many of you opposed actually have children?

No, I don't. Though if I ever have the misfortune I can guarantee I won't be one of those hysterical parents.

[vidcc]

So we're just ignoring the fact that people can be reformed and not be a danger to the community?
No. I am not ignoring this conception.

But I strongly believe that certain crimes deserve punishment and not reform. Cold blooded pre meditated murder for example deserves the death penalty, I don't see death as a deterent just punishment.
We are talking paedophiles, not some 18 year old that has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and gets a statatory rape conviction (change ages for the age of majority in your country), so I do draw a very clear distinction.
I can't say for sure one way or the other that a paedophile can be "reformed" or not and nobody could guarrentee that every reformed case carries no risk, but even if 99% could be reformed because of the nature of the crime I say screw them, they should pay for the 1% that could re-offened.

I know full well that this is a hard lined opinion and probably not coming across as "educationally understaning" but I will not risk one child by playing the risk game.


I am not aware if you have children or not...it doesn't matter.. but ask yourself this to test your faith in reforming......

Would you let a "reformed" paedophile look after your children on a camping trip like the boy scouts have? would you let them babysit? would you allow them to work in your child's school?.....

[Busyman]

I am not aware if you have children or not...it doesn't matter.. but ask yourself this to test your faith in reforming......

Would you let a "reformed" paedophile look after your children on a camping trip like the boy scouts have? would you let them babysit? would you allow them to work in your child's school?.....
Devil advocate:

Since I don't have to know where he lives but just his arrest record, this can be found out without a registry.

[bigboab]

No. I am not ignoring this conception.

But I strongly believe that certain crimes deserve punishment and not reform. Cold blooded pre meditated murder for example deserves the death penalty, I don't see death as a deterent just punishment.
We are talking paedophiles, not some 18 year old that has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and gets a statatory rape conviction (change ages for the age of majority in your country), so I do draw a very clear distinction.
I can't say for sure one way or the other that a paedophile can be "reformed" or not and nobody could guarrentee that every reformed case carries no risk, but even if 99% could be reformed because of the nature of the crime I say screw them, they should pay for the 1% that could re-offened.

I know full well that this is a hard lined opinion and probably not coming across as "educationally understaning" but I will not risk one child by playing the risk game.


I am not aware if you have children or not...it doesn't matter.. but ask yourself this to test your faith in reforming......

Would you let a "reformed" paedophile look after your children on a camping trip like the boy scouts have? would you let them babysit? would you allow them to work in your child's school?.....

In your statement you are in favour of the death penalty in certain cases. So I assume you would apply the same logic in reverse. Execute them, even though occasionally you might execute an innocent person. :(

[vidcc]

Devil advocate:

Since I don't have to know where he lives but just his arrest record, this can be found out without a registry.
Not sure what you are saying in connection to what I posted. The bit you quoted was directly connected to faith in the idea that a paedophile can be reformed and no risk, so on that assumption one would say that he knew he was a "reformed" paedophile.

[vidcc]

In your statement you are in favour of the death penalty in certain cases. So I assume you would apply the same logic in reverse. Execute them, even though occasionally you might execute an innocent person. :(
Not at all. In many death penalty threads I have made it clear I am only for it in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever, beyond a reasonable doubt is not good enough. This is why I said "certain" cases.
I believe that some people deserve to die but it is not an across the board option without any room for exceptions.
I also don't agree with death for those under the age of majority.

[MCHeshPants420]

I am not aware if you have children or not...it doesn't matter.. but ask yourself this to test your faith in reforming......

Would you let a "reformed" paedophile look after your children on a camping trip like the boy scouts have? would you let them babysit? would you allow them to work in your child's school?.....

I'm not really sure if I have to test my faith really. I don't believe someone who has been convicted of a sex offence can work with children. I've worked for various voluntary organisations that deal with children and have always been police checked.

In much the same way I wouldn't allow a previous sex offender look after my children. They have forgone their right to be in contact with children, that I have no problem with whatsoever.

But if they have served their time and been given a 'clean bill of health' then I see no reason (or right) that we should keep them imprisoned.

Don't get me wrong though. Offences of this nature should be dealt with harshly; 25 years and up. They should be coming out grey haired and old.

[Busyman]

Not sure what you are saying in connection to what I posted. The bit you quoted was directly connected to faith in the idea that a paedophile can be reformed and no risk, so on that assumption one would say that he knew he was a "reformed" paedophile.
I was saying this in relation to WithCheese's objections in general.

I do understand your question to be valid however, even if unrelated to the main topic.

I personally wouldn't take the risk. There are too many child sex offenders and rapists that "couldn't help themselves". There mere fact that an older man wants to touch little boys screams unbalanced in the head to an extent and don't believe in reformation for these folk.

[vidcc]

I'm not really sure if I have to test my faith really. I don't believe someone who has been convicted of a sex offence can work with children. I've worked for various voluntary organisations that deal with children and have always been police checked.

In much the same way I wouldn't allow a previous sex offender look after my children. They have forgone their right to be in contact with children, that I have no problem with whatsoever.

But if they have served their time and been given a 'clean bill of health' then I see no reason (or right) that we should keep them imprisoned.

Don't get me wrong though. Offences of this nature should be dealt with harshly; 25 years and up. They should be coming out grey haired and old.

And here is why i didn't go with "reform" for these people...because if they where "reformed" then surely there would be no risk involved..... Not just keeping them out of schools etc. but on "the street"

[vidcc]

I do understand your question to be valid however, even unrelated to the main topic.
:blink:

[Busyman]

:blink:
Damn dude I know your question was related to faith and what not but I posed it in relation to the topic. Jeez.

[vidcc]

Damn dude I know your question was related to faith and what not but I posed it in relation to the topic. Jeez.
the topic is about sex offenders and making lists available, part of the debate is if they can be reformed they are no risk, If we are to debate the pros and cons then there has to be reasoning behind the point...... so how is it unrelated?

[MCHeshPants420]

the topic is about sex offenders and making lists available, part of the debate is if they can be reformed they are no risk, If we are to debate the pros and cons then there has to be reasoning behind the point...... so how is it unrelated?

I think it boils down to the fact that I believe the majority will reform and so should be released when they serve their term, you believe that because of the minority that do reoffend that they should all be locked up for the rest of their natural.

I don't really have much more to add to that, I disagree with your standpoint but understand your reasoning.

Anyhow, here's an interesting page that I used in an essay last year: http://66.165.94.98/stories/sexoffend.html

The last part is worthy of note in particular:


A concerned citizen once asked a criminologist what could be done about child molestation. "Don't molest your children," he replied. The truth behind this response is undeniable. Most sexual misconduct happens within families or among friends; the stalking predator is more a myth than a reality.

For this reason, community notification provisions like Megan's Law in New Jersey are deceptive. They focus attention on individuals who have been caught - not because of the threat they pose but because of other threats we are unable to solve. They also invite excoriation and vigilantism against individuals who have paid their debt to society and need to be peacefully reintegrated.

The best community response is to focus on recognized ways to keep the problems at a minimum. Punishment and incapacitation have a role to play, but they are inadequate by themselves. Psychological treatment while in prison and after release is vital; education and aftercare are proven to reduce the likelihood of reoffending in the future. Most importantly, the public must make an effort to remain sane and sober in the face of these serious crimes.

[Busyman]

the topic is about sex offenders and making lists available, part of the debate is if they can be reformed they are no risk, If we are to debate the pros and cons then there has to be reasoning behind the point...... so how is it unrelated?
Dude it's not directly related but that ain't the point I was making.

You were not being chided about it.

[vidcc]

education and aftercare are proven to reduce the likelihood of reoffending in the future.
The wording hits me. If it said proven to eliminate i would feel better about it.. reducing the risk isn't good enough for me personally.

I am looking at it with a sober view.... but hard view.

[MCHeshPants420]

Quote:
A concerned citizen once asked a criminologist what could be done about child molestation. "Don't molest your children," he replied. The truth behind this response is undeniable. Most sexual misconduct happens within families or among friends; the stalking predator is more a myth than a reality.

For this reason, community notification provisions like Megan's Law in New Jersey are deceptive. They focus attention on individuals who have been caught - not because of the threat they pose but because of other threats we are unable to solve. They also invite excoriation and vigilantism against individuals who have paid their debt to society and need to be peacefully reintegrated.

The best community response is to focus on recognized ways to keep the problems at a minimum. Punishment and incapacitation have a role to play, but they are inadequate by themselves. Psychological treatment while in prison and after release is vital; education and aftercare are proven to reduce the likelihood of reoffending in the future. Most importantly, the public must make an effort to remain sane and sober in the face of these serious crimes.

The fact someone saw fit to use this statement as a resource for an essay does not mitigate it's basic idiocy.

It is short-sighted (no pun intented) and reeks of the typically intellectually elite thought processes which have colluded to create a massive body of ineffective law and purported "oversight".

While I would think this should be apparent to any and all, I hope to have time tomorrow to expand on my post.


Damn, I'm might be going away for a few days. I might miss it. See you next Tuesday.

[Busyman]

Damn, I'm might be going away for a few days. I might miss it. See you next Tuesday.

Psychological treatment while in prison

education and aftercare
:unsure:

[fkdup74]

How is me disagreeing with someone's fucking opinion risking innocent children? You can ignore the rest of my points and answer that. Idiot.

OK bitch.....you wanna start a fucking flame fest?

if you can't handle a little criticism, hopefully you're not a parent,
because you sure as hell couldn't handle kids if so

and if you are now, or ever become a father....
don't fucking blame ANYONE if your child gets abused
because you wanna stay ignorant to your neighbors/surroundings/whatever
you risk your children, I will do what it takes to protect mine
it's a simple difference of opinion.....bitch

but it's ok, I know now how you fucking liberals really think :)

[NikkiD]

OK bitch.....you wanna start a fucking flame fest?

if you can't handle a little criticism, hopefully you're not a parent,
because you sure as hell couldn't handle kids if so

and if you are now, or ever become a father....
don't fucking blame ANYONE if your child gets abused
because you wanna stay ignorant to your neighbors/surroundings/whatever
you risk your children, I will do what it takes to protect mine
it's a simple difference of opinion.....bitch

but it's ok, I know now how you fucking liberals really think :)

Calm down Brain. :P

I think the point that fkdup is trying to make is that it's not about whether someone will re-offend, it's that awareness is key. Whether the child molestor actually re-offends is irrelevant.

If a child molester moves into a neighbourhood, and the public does not know about it, the opportunity for them to re-offend is more likely. People who don't know that their neighbour is a child molestor will be less likely to take necessary precautions to prevent such opportunities with that person from arising.

If a child molestor moves into a neighbourhood and the public does know about it, there is likely to be less chance of opportunity arising. People will be more wary of that person, more protective and more aware of potential danger.

To clarify what I mean by opportunity, I'll give an example. When someone new moves into my neighbourhood, they're often invited to coffee or some such for introductions and the like. Backyard barbecues or parties happen over the summer and you invite your new neighbour over. There are children present, who may or may not have some sort of social interaction with this neighbour, be it tossing a ball around, saying hello, or just being introduced. This is opportunity, akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull. The situation would not present itself if the public were aware that the new neighbour was a previously convicted paedophile.

The point was made that most molestation cases occur among family members or friends. If we don't know that someone has committed a crime like this, are we not more likely to allow them into our circle of friends? Allow them to be near our family? That statement loses credibility when placed in that light does it not?

It's true that not everyone will re-offend. It's also true that some will. We can't know with any certainty who will, and who will not. Isn't it our responsibility to protect our children from even the slightest possibility?

I believe the welfare of our children far outweighs the possible risk of vigilante attacks.

To the point of ostracism/privacy/right to reassume a normal life, I don't believe that anyone capable of committing a crime such as this should be afforded those rights. The mere fact that they could do something so atrocious to the most defenceless of victims denies them that right in my eyes, from the moment they committed the crime, to the moment they die, regardless of whether the legal system deems them rehabilitated or not.

[bigboab]

If they decide to make these lists available to the public I hope that no one has a double who is a known paedophile and that double moves into their area.
Lock them away for ever then the problem wont arise.

[MCHeshPants420]

Double-post.

[MCHeshPants420]

it's a simple difference of opinion.....bitch


That was my point. You had the gall to say that my opinion on an internet forum puts children in danger. You can't answer the question I posed as to why my opinion can put children in danger can you? Though more likely you didn't read my post fully before you started your little "flame fest"*.

But I can I see how your mind works, though I'm loath to give you a label because I can see you're a army of one in your idiocy.

Someone disagrees with you then in your eyes they want to harm children or don't care if they do get harmed. They disagree some more, you all but wish harm on any children they might have.

I hope you're kids have a smart mother, because their future is bleak if they think/act like you.

Oh, and for fuck's sake. I am not a 'liberal' get that through your thick head. (Can't deny the 'fucking' part though).


*I'm implying you're not very good at it.**

**The flaming, I'm implying you're not very good at the flaming.

[bigboab]

Someone disagrees with you then in your eyes they want to harm children


I agree completely. It is a silly stance to take. :(

[MCHeshPants420]

I agree completely. It is a silly stance to take. :(

Well I can at least thank FKDUP74 for waking my brain up this morning (I'm not a morning person in a very literal sense) as I have an essay to finish for 3pm...just 300 words and a spell-check to go. :D

[bigboab]

Well I can at least thank Brian for waking my brain up this morning (I'm not a morning person in a very literal sense) as I have an essay to finish for 3pm...just 300 words and a spell-check to go. :D
who's Brian?

Tell me later. Get on with your essay. :)

[MCHeshPants420]

who's Brian?

Tell me later. Get on with your essay. :)

FKDUP74 apparently. I can see how bad that looks now. :lol:

Just remembered I have to vote as well. I'll probably vote Lib Dem, eh? :shifty:

[bigboab]

FKDUP74 apparently. I can see how bad that looks now. :lol:

Just remembered I have to vote as well. I'll probably vote Lib Dem, eh? :shifty:

I was hoping for a Monster Raving Loony Party Candidate. I think Liberal will be my choice too. :)

[manker]

OK bitch.....you wanna start a fucking flame fest?

if you can't handle a little criticism, hopefully you're not a parent,
because you sure as hell couldn't handle kids if so

and if you are now, or ever become a father....
don't fucking blame ANYONE if your child gets abused
because you wanna stay ignorant to your neighbors/surroundings/whatever
you risk your children, I will do what it takes to protect mine
it's a simple difference of opinion.....bitch

but it's ok, I know now how you fucking liberals really think :)I have a son, he turned one last month. Lovely little chap.

It's funny how you say that having children changed your perspective, does this mean that the birth changed you from a fucking liberal into your current state. Shame.

Anyway, I will protect my son in a variety of ways, one of them being him having no time alone with strangers. I think that's sensible. What I'll also be aware of tho' is that children who are abused normally get abused by people in positions of trust rather than someone who you just don't know. A first time offender. I am presuming that a convicted sex offender cannot ascend to a position of trust involving kids where you live too and that convicted paedophiles have special release circumstances which preclude them from being near children - this kinda negates Nikki's, well written but ultimately flawed, post.

We're both running the same risk here, I mean knowing that the guy at #34 is a sex offender and not letting him be alone with your child is a good thing but does it mean that you'll leave your child be alone with the guy at #33 who isn't on the list. Of course not and neither will I.

To safeguard 100% against paedophiles who've not yet been caught would entail locking the kid up under either your or your partner's supervision 24/7. I'm not going to do that but I will be extra vigilant when it comes to the time when either myself or a member of my immediate family cannot be by his side.

I would expect every parent to do the same.



A paedophile list would not make my child any safer because I take full responsibility for that task. I'm confident that I can do it with or without a public sex-offender list.

[Busyman]

How is me disagreeing with someone's fucking opinion risking innocent children? You can ignore the rest of my points and answer that. Idiot.
What's with the name calling?

Those opposed to the list are fine with not knowing who may be a sex offender in their area. It seems they will treat everyone with the same scrutiny or not. These folks may be invited into their homes but not necessary left with their children.

Those for it will know who has been convicted of a sex offense beforehand. I doubt they would be invited anywhere.

You may scrutinize folks but you may start to trust someone after you get to know them yet they are a sex offender.

Over in the US we are better informed.

You choose not to know 'cause someone might hurt them.

[manker]

What's with the name calling?
:lol:

You rodding or what :D

[MCHeshPants420]

What's with the name calling?

Oh, the ironing. :lol:

[Busyman]

Oh, the ironing. :lol:
Yup it's ironing alright when I've seen you get on your high horse about the same shit.

I've seen you do same crap with me while ignoring others. :huh:

[Busyman]

I have a son, he turned one last month. Lovely little chap.

It's funny how you say that having children changed your perspective, does this mean that the birth changed you from a fucking liberal into your current state. Shame.

Anyway, I will protect my son in a variety of ways, one of them being him having no time alone with strangers. I think that's sensible. What I'll also be aware of tho' is that children who are abused normally get abused by people in positions of trust rather than someone who you just don't know. A first time offender. I am presuming that a convicted sex offender cannot ascend to a position of trust involving kids where you live too and that convicted paedophiles have special release circumstances which preclude them from being near children - this kinda negates Nikki's, well written but ultimately flawed, post.

We're both running the same risk here, I mean knowing that the guy at #34 is a sex offender and not letting him be alone with your child is a good thing but does it mean that you'll leave your child be alone with the guy at #33 who isn't on the list. Of course not and neither will I.

To safeguard 100% against paedophiles who've not yet been caught would entail locking the kid up under either your or your partner's supervision 24/7. I'm not going to do that but I will be extra vigilant when it comes to the time when either myself or a member of my immediate family cannot be by his side.

I would expect every parent to do the same.



A paedophile list would not make my child any safer because I take full responsibility for that task. I'm confident that I can do it with or without a public sex-offender list.
Many of us are extra vigilant (God knows I am).......a small few are vigilante.

I also have extra knowledge witht the list. It also keeps the offender on their toes. We are watching. :shifty:

[MCHeshPants420]

Yup it's ironing alright when I've seen you get on your high horse about the same shit.

I've seen you do same crap with me while ignoring others. :huh:

I think that's more to do with the immatureness of your name calling* and the repressed homosexual subtext that your insults contain.

Yeah, I call people names on occassion but I do try to only be responding in kind.





*Yes, I realise the irony there as well.

[fkdup74]

Calm down Brain. :P

I think the point that fkdup is trying to make is that it's not about whether someone will re-offend, it's that awareness is key. Whether the child molestor actually re-offends is irrelevant.

If a child molester moves into a neighbourhood, and the public does not know about it, the opportunity for them to re-offend is more likely. People who don't know that their neighbour is a child molestor will be less likely to take necessary precautions to prevent such opportunities with that person from arising.

If a child molestor moves into a neighbourhood and the public does know about it, there is likely to be less chance of opportunity arising. People will be more wary of that person, more protective and more aware of potential danger.

To clarify what I mean by opportunity, I'll give an example. When someone new moves into my neighbourhood, they're often invited to coffee or some such for introductions and the like. Backyard barbecues or parties happen over the summer and you invite your new neighbour over. There are children present, who may or may not have some sort of social interaction with this neighbour, be it tossing a ball around, saying hello, or just being introduced. This is opportunity, akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull. The situation would not present itself if the public were aware that the new neighbour was a previously convicted paedophile.

The point was made that most molestation cases occur among family members or friends. If we don't know that someone has committed a crime like this, are we not more likely to allow them into our circle of friends? Allow them to be near our family? That statement loses credibility when placed in that light does it not?

It's true that not everyone will re-offend. It's also true that some will. We can't know with any certainty who will, and who will not. Isn't it our responsibility to protect our children from even the slightest possibility?

I believe the welfare of our children far outweighs the possible risk of vigilante attacks.

To the point of ostracism/privacy/right to reassume a normal life, I don't believe that anyone capable of committing a crime such as this should be afforded those rights. The mere fact that they could do something so atrocious to the most defenceless of victims denies them that right in my eyes, from the moment they committed the crime, to the moment they die, regardless of whether the legal system deems them rehabilitated or not.

I am calm :blushing: and well said/posted Nikki, TYVM :)
I couldn't be arsed to go that deep into my opinion, had other things to worry about

Hesh, I was merely responding in the manner that you posted towards me
knock off the bullshit, I'll knock it off too, easy as that ;)

I care to know about who's been convicted of molestation,
because then I can take the precautions necessary to keep my kids away from these people,
or to instruct them how to react if/when confronted by such a person
(a swift kick in the balls comes to mind) :devil:

and before any of you jump on yer high horse....
NO I DO NOT WANT MY CHILDREN TO HAVE TO FACE SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
I can see the possible reactions to this post...
"oh he's a rootin' tootin' gun totin' sun-of-a-gun that just wants his kid to go around kickin pepole in the nads, hyuck hyuck"
I dont even want to have to have a precautionary talk with them about it,
as I feel even the discussion is a theft of some of their innocence,
but child abuse/molestation is one of reality's sad faces

so what do you do? stay ignorant and make them a potential victim?
to hell with that, lessening the risk is a good way to start IMO

community service is another
I coach Little League, so I got kids up teh wazoo
on a slow week, we practice Mon-Wed-Fri, for about 2 1/2 - 3 hrs
the kids are in a safe place for that time
it's a pretty busy schedule for them, yeah, school til about 3 or so,
homework, then dealing with us degenerate coaches for a few hours :P
it leaves hardly any time for Nintendo or Playstation, I know :lol:
but it also leaves little time for them to be in potential harm's way
and when I say they are safe, believe it, at least while they're with me
I've kicked fuckers out of the park before, and I'll do it again,
if I feel they pose even the mildest threat to one of my kids ;)
the parents seem to support this, funny huh?
we got kids & parents itching to get on our team
not just because we teach em baseabll, or because we win,
but because the kids are my primary concern, as it should be,
and hopefully they come away from this season with more than a simple understanding of how to turn a double play
if I catch someone smokin dope at the park....gtfo
some stranger just hangin around lookin wierd....gtfo
is it a public park? yeah
but will I have that shit around children? nope
and if I see someone tryin to prey on one of those kids....
with drugs, sex, ANYTHING.....
I got half a dozen Louisville Sluggers in my equipment bag,
and I will try to dent every one of them over that fucker's head

I'm of the opinion that you have to take a stand as far as you're capable
even if that means meeting stupidity or malicious intent with violence

[fkdup74]

What I'll also be aware of tho' is that children who are abused normally get abused by people in positions of trust rather than someone who you just don't know. A first time offender. I am presuming that a convicted sex offender cannot ascend to a position of trust involving kids where you live too and that convicted paedophiles have special release circumstances which preclude them from being near children - this kinda negates Nikki's, well written but ultimately flawed, post.

here is the flaw, not Nikki's post,
(which happens to be the opinion of a concerned mother).....

....some of these guys/gals get released back into the community
no, they willl never be able to hold a teaching job (thank God),
or even to volunteer in childrens' after school/extra curricular activities,
as nationwide checks are ran even to coach Little League baseball
but...
they end up moving back into the average neighborhood,
next to the average family with the avreage 2.4 kids
and a mom & dad who both work, with some teeny bopper nanny, who,
talks on the phone with her b/f rather than sit the kids

if mom & dad dont know about Joe Neighbor's history....
well....you fill in the blanks....but I think Nik already filled them in.....

as for the first time offenders, the people in positions of trust,
meh.....I'll get into that later...

[bigboab]

I am calm :blushing: and well said/posted Nikki, TYVM :)
I couldn't be arsed to go that deep into my opinion, had other things to worry about

Hesh, I was merely responding in the manner that you posted towards me
knock off the bullshit, I'll knock it off too, easy as that ;)

I care to know about who's been convicted of molestation,
because then I can take the precautions necessary to keep my kids away from these people,
or to instruct them how to react if/when confronted by such a person
(a swift kick in the balls comes to mind) :devil:

and before any of you jump on yer high horse....
NO I DO NOT WANT MY CHILDREN TO HAVE TO FACE SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
I can see the possible reactions to this post...
"oh he's a rootin' tootin' gun totin' sun-of-a-gun that just wants his kid to go around kickin pepole in the nads, hyuck hyuck"
I dont even want to have to have a precautionary talk with them about it,
as I feel even the discussion is a theft of some of their innocence,
but child abuse/molestation is one of reality's sad faces

so what do you do? stay ignorant and make them a potential victim?
to hell with that, lessening the risk is a good way to start IMO

community service is another
I coach Little League, so I got kids up teh wazoo
on a slow week, we practice Mon-Wed-Fri, for about 2 1/2 - 3 hrs
the kids are in a safe place for that time
it's a pretty busy schedule for them, yeah, school til about 3 or so,
homework, then dealing with us degenerate coaches for a few hours :P
it leaves hardly any time for Nintendo or Playstation, I know :lol:
but it also leaves little time for them to be in potential harm's way
and when I say they are safe, believe it, at least while they're with me
I've kicked fuckers out of the park before, and I'll do it again,
if I feel they pose even the mildest threat to one of my kids ;)
the parents seem to support this, funny huh?
we got kids & parents itching to get on our team
not just because we teach em baseabll, or because we win,
but because the kids are my primary concern, as it should be,
and hopefully they come away from this season with more than a simple understanding of how to turn a double play
if I catch someone smokin dope at the park....gtfo
some stranger just hangin around lookin wierd....gtfo
is it a public park? yeah
but will I have that shit around children? nope
and if I see someone tryin to prey on one of those kids....
with drugs, sex, ANYTHING.....
I got half a dozen Louisville Sluggers in my equipment bag,
and I will try to dent every one of them over that fucker's head

I'm of the opinion that you have to take a stand as far as you're capable
even if that means meeting stupidity or malicious intent with violence


So you kick people out off the park. May I ask on whose authority do you do this? Would it not be better to use your mobile phone and call the poklice if someone is acting suspiciously. Instead of hunting them away to some other park or street where kids play.

If you act the way you say you act you are not setting a very good example to the kids that you are supposed to be teaching.

On a Saturday morning I used to walk across the parks, about 2 miles, to the shops. I am an old man 66. I used to stop halfway and watch the boys playing football(Soccer). I would watch for about half an hopur then carry on to the shops. I always considered that boys soccer was the best and most natural game before the 'trainers' got them.

About 8 years ago I stopped watching the soccer and now just walk on past. The reason? I was frightened of people like you. Not frightened of you in particular, I would have personally shoved your bats where they belong. But frightened of what I said earlier. Even wrong accusations stick.

Just in case you are wondering
Yes I am married and have children
I am an ex policeman and ex college lecturer.

P.S. May I add that I would be more worried about the my kids coach than any spectator.

[manker]

here is the flaw, not Nikki's post,
(which happens to be the opinion of a concerned mother).....

....some of these guys/gals get released back into the community
no, they willl never be able to hold a teaching job (thank God),
or even to volunteer in childrens' after school/extra curricular activities,
as nationwide checks are ran even to coach Little League baseball
but...
they end up moving back into the average neighborhood,
next to the average family with the avreage 2.4 kids
and a mom & dad who both work, with some teeny bopper nanny, who,
talks on the phone with her b/f rather than sit the kids

if mom & dad dont know about Joe Neighbor's history....
well....you fill in the blanks....but I think Nik already filled them in.....

as for the first time offenders, the people in positions of trust,
meh.....I'll get into that later...I can't help your judicial system but that isn't the case with ours, did you misunderstand the bit where I said that there are measures in place to preclude convicted pedophiles from contact with children. What I mean was that ... they're not allowed anywhere near kids else they'll end up back in prison :huh:

There are enough people in the know, as it were, who will report the slightest indescretion to the police. This doesn't preclude family barbeques nor baby-sitting, funnily enough.

As for kicking people out of public parks for looking a bit weird. Brian, you're just a bully. Odd looking folk have rights too. I'd probably pull my son out of that team in favour of one where the coach didn't teach intimidation as well as basketball.

[manker]

So you kick people out off the park. May I ask on whose authority do you do this? Would it not be better to use your mobile phone and call the poklice if someone is acting suspiciously. Instead of hunting them away to some other park or street where kids play.

If you act the way you say you act you are not setting a very good example to the kids that you are supposed to be teaching.

On a Saturday morning I used to walk across the parks, about 2 miles, to the shops. I am an old man 66. I used to stop halfway and watch the boys playing football(Soccer). I would watch for about half an hopur then carry on to the shops. I always considered that boys soccer was the best and most natural game before the 'trainers' got them.

About 8 years ago I stopped watching the soccer and now just walk on past. The reason? I was frightened of people like you. Not frightened of you in particular, I would have personally shoved your bats where they belong. But frightened of what I said earlier. Even wrong accusations stick.

Just in case you are wondering
Yes I am married and have children
I am an ex policeman and ex college lecturer.

P.S. May I add that I would be more worried about the my kids coach than any spectator.
Well said, Boab.

You should carry on watching the soccer if that's what you like to do. I often stop in the park and do the same if I'm not playing, be it mens/boys soccer or rugby. Mostly watching the kids is better because of their enthusiasm and love of playing, half the blokes on my team are only in it for the after match drink (including me if it's muddy :unsure:).

I notice lots of elderly gentlemen watching, particularly if the weather is nice. Any thoughts of something more sinister has never entered my head - and won't do of most normal thinking folk. Personally I'd smile while saying 'Fuck off, twat' if anyone asked me to leave a public park but I do understand that mud sticks.

It's a shame :(

[MCHeshPants420]

I have nothing more to add...apart from:

http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/basketball.gif

[fkdup74]

So you kick people out off the park. May I ask on whose authority do you do this? Would it not be better to use your mobile phone and call the poklice if someone is acting suspiciously.

who's authority? mine, and mine alone :)

if the "real" authorities are bothered by this...
well then, they can get off their asses and patrol the city like they are supposed to ;)

as I have posted before, and every post of mine regarding this matter seems to indicate,
I get pissed when thinking of people trying to harm kids,
and until a better way is proposed, I'll protect them my way
is it perfect? not by any means
is it wrong? show me a better way

you can discuss, debate, argue, whatever, but sometimes you have to actually do something
it's not always wrong to fight for your beliefs ;)
not alwyas right, or even the best way, but not always wrong either

city hall, the police dept., etc? they are not the current answer, sorry
they corrupt themselves with the power given them,
and see no further than the means by which they can gain more
we've had 2 or 3 mayors in a row kicked out for corruption,
and I see no change in the immediate, or even near, future
same with the chief of police
so are those the people we are supposed to turn to? shit :lol:

[GepperRankins]

why does it always have to descend into long boring posts that don't go anywhere?



as I have posted before, and every post of mine regarding this matter seems to indicate,
I get pissed when thinking of people trying to harm kids,
and until a better way is proposed, I'll protect them my way
is it perfect? not by any means
is it wrong? show me a better way

i was just scanning through and saw some stuff about parks, then this.

so you kick people off parks because you don't like the look of them?

[JPaul]

Just thought I would say that the concept of a paedophile "reforming" strikes me as preposterous. They may stop acting out on their urge to abuse children, but surely they would still have them (short of some sort of chemical / surgical way to remove them).

If we work on that basis, then they will always present a danger. No matter how well they control themselves the urge will still be there.

That's different from a thief, bully or whatever who can realize what they are doing is wrong and stop doing it. Even if the paedophile thinks their actions are wrong they will still have those urges.

I also agree with Nikki, having decided to commit such acts they have removed their right to privacy. Or at the very least seriously diminished it.

[fkdup74]

i was just scanning through and saw some stuff about parks, then this.

so you kick people off parks because you don't like the look of them?

well I guess I should have counted on you of all poeple to blow it out of context :dry:
boab's post I saw merely as debate...you on the other hand....well.... :P

@boab - I only remove those that pose a problem, threat, etc.
spectators are part of baseball.....paedos, drug pushers, etc are not

[JPaul]

@boab - I only remove those that pose a problem, threat, etc.
spectators are part of baseball.....paedos, drug pushers, etc are not
The point is, who elected you judge, jury and executioner.

That, my friend is vigilantism. Perhaps only in a small way, just now, but that's what it is.

If the person is about to commit an act, then it is proper to act yourself. If however it is because you don't like the look of them, or assume what they are going to do something then you have no right to molest them.

If someone is acting suspiciously call the Police.

[fkdup74]

If someone is acting suspiciously call the Police.

read above regarding the integrity of our police force/city officials :rolleyes:

[NikkiD]

I can't help your judicial system but that isn't the case with ours, did you misunderstand the bit where I said that there are measures in place to preclude convicted pedophiles from contact with children. What I mean was that ... they're not allowed anywhere near kids else they'll end up back in prison :huh:

Only if it's reported. If we don't know who we're reporting, then the guy in the park and letting the kids throw the ball for his dog, may just seem like a nice man who likes kids.

The sad fact is that they are not monitored 24/7. They are tracked only as far as jobs they may take, having to report in to counselling, and having to report in to the police/respective law enforcement agencies at specific times. As far as their social life, and free time, they are not tailed by police and they are not required to wear tracking devices (not here at least). The authorities cannot know where they are at all times.


There are enough people in the know, as it were, who will report the slightest indescretion to the police. This doesn't preclude family barbeques nor baby-sitting, funnily enough.

If someone is sex offender, I don't want them at that barbeque or baby-sitting my child, even if they don't commit some indiscretion. I don't care if they will re-offend. I don't want them anywhere near my children, or my friend's children, or my neices and nephews, or my godsons. If I know that they are a paedophile, at least I can prevent this from happening with them.

I realize that there are those who have not been reported, who have never been to jail, and who will or have committed sexual offences. I also realize that there is no way for me to identify those people, and that there could be a risk in anyone my child comes into contact with. What I'm saying is that by knowing about those who are registered, at least that risk is reduced.

[manker]

Just thought I would say that the concept of a paedophile "reforming" strikes me as preposterous. They may stop acting out on their urge to abuse children, but surely they would still have them (short of some sort of chemical / surgical way to remove them).

If we work on that basis, then they will always present a danger. No matter how well they control themselves the urge will still be there.

That's different from a thief, bully or whatever who can realize what they are doing is wrong and stop doing it. Even if the paedophile thinks their actions are wrong they will still have those urges.

I also agree with Nikki, having decided to commit such acts they have removed their right to privacy. Or at the very least seriously diminished it.Yes, their rights will be severely diminished. Being tracked by authorities for the rest of their lives is fair, so is having to report for regular counciling sessions and being subject to interrogation about their lifestyles by trained police officers each month.

As to the reformation, of course they cannot stop feeling sexually attracted to children, one presumes. I say that because I get this urge to sexc0r most women I see, no amount of rehabilitation could get me to think differently. I don't act upon these urges tho', not only because missus manker would be most upset but because some of these women may object.

Since in our society it is inevitable that some paedophiles will get released from incarceration, would it not be better to instill a sense of self discipline into these folk, keeping stringent tabs upon while still affording them some freedom - ie. keeping them in the system - rather than risking sending them into hiding, because of some superfluous list, with like-minded people and so become a far greater risk to children.


Honestly, I don't know what's for the best regarding reformation. I would prefer very long prison sentences, tho' maybe not indefinite ones for some cases. What I do know is that a list will help no-one except criminals - it could even lead to a false sense of security in some areas where no convicted paedophiles were located. I can't see how I could take care of my son more than I already do. A list would make no difference my vigilance.

However, I'm a new dad. Perhaps I'm missing something.

[JPaul]

read above regarding the integrity of our police force/city officials :rolleyes:
I did.

So, that does not give you the right to molest people.

You are merely proving the point of those who oppose publishing lists on the basis of vigilante behaviour.

[manker]

Only if it's reported. If we don't know who we're reporting, then the guy in the park and letting the kids throw the ball for his dog, may just seem like a nice man who likes kids.

The sad fact is that they are not monitored 24/7. They are tracked only as far as jobs they may take, having to report in to counselling, and having to report in to the police/respective law enforcement agencies at specific times. As far as their social life, and free time, they are not tailed by police and they are not required to wear tracking devices (not here at least). The authorities cannot know where they are at all times.



If someone is sex offender, I don't want them at that barbeque or baby-sitting my child, even if they don't commit some indiscretion. I don't care if they will re-offend. I don't want them anywhere near my children, or my friend's children, or my neices and nephews, or my godsons. If I know that they are a paedophile, at least I can prevent this from happening with them.

I realize that there are those who have not been reported, who have never been to jail, and who will or have committed sexual offences. I also realize that there is no way for me to identify those people, and that there could be a risk in anyone my child comes into contact with. What I'm saying is that by knowing about those who are registered, at least that risk is reduced.Of course, I can see what you're saying. Tagging them is as excellent idea and happens over here, tho' not in all cases and not forever. I will say that it's not only the police who have access to the sex-offender's register, it's also teachers, youth workers, doctors, sports group organisers and other groups. I can see how you wish to personally have this control over some local paedophiles coming into contact with your children rather than entrust this soley to the authorities and the paedophile him/herself but my point is that the fact that everyone knows is also a bad thing.

I don't care that much if a paedophile gets beaten up. I do care if an innocent person gets dubbed a paedophile because they look a bit like someone on the list or have the same name or live in a certain house. I want these paedophiles to be in full view of the police rather than get driven into hiding precisely because of a list making everyone aware of them because that way they're less of a danger.

You say that seeing the list reduces the risk but I say it increases the risk because more of them will disappear from public view. This increases the number of local paedophiles who aren't being monitored in any way. A report I read yesterday stated that after Megan's Law was implemented that out of a group of 300, only 80 paedophiles still resided where they were supposed to be at.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there are other factors that maybe you've not considered.

[Busyman]

I think that's more to do with the immatureness of your name calling* and the repressed homosexual subtext that your insults contain.

Yeah, I call people names on occassion but I do try to only be responding in kind.





*Yes, I realise the irony there as well.
Wtf is mature name calling? I have no wish to be British "prim and propa" with name calling (I am a little more colorful than that) and in almost all cases it is in response to you and others bullshit name calling.

So if I tell you to suck dick I say it because by your posts you seem like a dick sucker, not because you say it has a homosexual subtext. :mellow:

Mmmk

[Busyman]

I have nothing more to add...apart from:

http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/basketball.gif
Well I don't think soccer is. It's just boring until there is finally a goal scored.
(especially the PSV/Milan game).

I think it's great for a miniscule Sportscenter highlight. :)

[GepperRankins]

well I guess I should have counted on you of all poeple to blow it out of context :dry:
boab's post I saw merely as debate...you on the other hand....well.... :P

@boab - I only remove those that pose a problem, threat, etc.
spectators are part of baseball.....paedos, drug pushers, etc are not
[off-topic]it's kind of ironic. that if you do act like this, your children protect you from the unsavoury ones. because if you came on the park shouting at me for no reason, waving a rounders bat i'd kick the shit out of you, but not in front of your children.[/off-topic]

[JPaul]

Yes, their rights will be severely diminished. Being tracked by authorities for the rest of their lives is fair, so is having to report for regular counciling sessions and being subject to interrogation about their lifestyles by trained police officers each month.

As to the reformation, of course they cannot stop feeling sexually attracted to children, one presumes. I say that because I get this urge to sexc0r most women I see, no amount of rehabilitation could get me to think differently. I don't act upon these urges tho', not only because missus manker would be most upset but because some of these women may object.

Since in our society it is inevitable that some paedophiles will get released from incarceration, would it not be better to instill a sense of self discipline into these folk, keeping stringent tabs upon while still affording them some freedom - ie. keeping them in the system - rather than risking sending them into hiding, because of some superfluous list, with like-minded people and so become a far greater risk to children.


Honestly, I don't know what's for the best regarding reformation. I would prefer very long prison sentences, tho' maybe not indefinite ones for some cases. What I do know is that a list will help no-one except criminals - it could even lead to a false sense of security in some areas where no convicted paedophiles were located. I can't see how I could take care of my son more than I already do. A list would make no difference my vigilance.

However, I'm a new dad. Perhaps I'm missing something.


It's one of these things where I cannot disagree with one thing you say. I understand your arguments and even agree with some, but I just come to a different conclusion.

For me, I just want as much information as possible and I feel that I have a right to know where these people are.

We can agree to disagree on the main yes / no issue.

[bigboab]

Its nice to see some Moderation Harmony in debates. :rolleyes:

[JPaul]

Its nice to see some Moderation Harmony in debates. :rolleyes:
One can be civilized whilst disagreeing.

I'm sure you agree bawbag.

[bigboab]

One can be civilized whilst disagreeing.

I'm sure you agree bawbag.

Bawbag? Haven't seen one in a while. :lol: I dont like mirrors. :lol:

[JPaul]

Bawbag? Haven't seen one in a while. :lol: I dont like mirrors. :lol:
Sorry, I did a spellcheck and just let it automatically replace words.

The original was "I'm sure you agree bigboab"

[fkdup74]

[off-topic]it's kind of ironic. that if you do act like this, your children protect you from the unsavoury ones. because if you came on the park shouting at me for no reason, waving a rounders bat i'd kick the shit out of you, but not in front of your children.[/off-topic]

trust me son, if you were fuckin with my kids, team or family,
you wouldn't get the chance ;)

[MCHeshPants420]

trust me son, if you were fuckin with my kids, team or family,
you wouldn't get the chance ;)

Wow. I hope you take this in the "if you can't handle a little criticism"* sort of way but...you sound like quite a disturbed and violent person.




*I quoted you there.

[GepperRankins]

trust me son, if you were fuckin with my kids, team or family,
you wouldn't get the chance ;)
or even if we weren't?

seriously, i'd love to see you try this round here. you'd be out cold before you could get your gun because your rounders bat was laughed at.

[Busyman]

trust me son, if you were fuckin with my kids, team or family,
you wouldn't get the chance ;)
I doubt though that you kick folks out of a park. Hell anyone can watch a game. When you said this you gave some here an opening for them to focus on when I think you just made an off (proofread by JP) remark.

[JPaul]

What's an oft remark.

oft = ???

[MCHeshPants420]

What's an oft remark.

oft = ???

Office of Fair Trading.

[enoughfakefiles]

What's an oft remark.

oft = ???

Out for tea. :unsure:

[Busyman]

What's an oft remark.

oft = ???
Thank you my spell checker. :blink:

I meant off

[JPaul]

Then I agree, his remark was most certainly off.

[Busyman]

Then I agree, his remark was most certainly off.
Very much so.

I understand his concerns though.

[enoughfakefiles]

Very much so.

I understand his concerned though.

Do you mean that if you look weird then your a paedophiles. :blink:

[GepperRankins]

Do you mean that if you look weird then your a paedophiles. :blink:
if you're american you're paranoid and dangerous

[JPaul]

Very much so.

I understand his concerned though.
I understand his concerned as well. However he is just illustrating the point people made, that vigilantism can occur when people decide that they will be judge and jury.

I want the lists published.

I want people who behave in this way arrested and charged. They are behaving in a thuggish manner.

As an aside they make the lists less likely to be published.

[Busyman]

Do you mean that if you look weird then your a paedophiles. :blink:
No we leave that for some of our British neighbors across the sea.

What, do you need it spelled out for you?

People will pay attention to weird looking folk.

Many weird looking folk are really weird.

[enoughfakefiles]

No we leave that for some of our British neighbors across the sea.

What, do you need it spelled out for you?

People will pay attention to weird looking folk.

Many weird looking folk are really weird.

Your strange. Just because you look wierd does`nt mean to say that you are wierd. :blink:

[Busyman]

Your strange. Just because you look wierd does`nt mean to say that you are wierd. :blink:
No shit.

You still can't discount human nature to pay attention to weird.

Of course there are many pedophiles that look "normal".

Does everyone focus on words or also words in context?

[GepperRankins]

stereotyping is gay

[JPaul]

stereotyping is gay
:lol:

All violent people should be lined up against a wall and shot.