sex offenders lists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fkdup

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

If someone is acting suspiciously call the Police.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

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.