sex offenders lists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

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?.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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

---

:blink: