Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
TY JPaul :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Sorry, but I think that is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
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.
didn't mean it in that sense JPQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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
Way ahead a ya bud.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
This is the site I looked at.
http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/sorSearch/
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
A little girl at that.
Indeed, sorry for the misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
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.
I hear what you say and have a daughter myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
On your other point. I dont have the statistics but I think very young girls and boys around puberty are the most at risk. :(
nah, no apology necessary :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I see how my comment may have been misinterpreted, (sp?)
I just couldn't be arsed to explain myself :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
I'm going to weigh anecdotal evidence against what? You say there is a number but erm...I don't see it anywhere?
A convict is someone who is in prison I believe.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:
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.
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.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
How is me disagreeing with someone's fucking opinion risking innocent children? You can ignore the rest of my points and answer that. Idiot.
No, I don't. Though if I ever have the misfortune I can guarantee I won't be one of those hysterical parents.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 am not ignoring this conception.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
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?.....
Devil advocate:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Since I don't have to know where he lives but just his arrest record, this can be found out without a registry.
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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.
I was saying this in relation to WithCheese's objections in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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.
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 MCHeshPants420
:blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Damn dude I know your question was related to faith and what not but I posed it in relation to the topic. Jeez.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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:
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.
Dude it's not directly related but that ain't the point I was making.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
You were not being chided about it.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
I am looking at it with a sober view.... but hard view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Damn, I'm might be going away for a few days. I might miss it. See you next Tuesday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
Quote:
Psychological treatment while in prison
:unsure:Quote:
education and aftercare
OK bitch.....you wanna start a fucking flame fest?Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
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. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
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.
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.
Double-post.
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"*.Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
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.
I agree completely. It is a silly stance to take. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
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. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
who's Brian?Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
Tell me later. Get on with your essay. :)
FKDUP74 apparently. I can see how bad that looks now. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
I have a son, he turned one last month. Lovely little chap.Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
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.
What's with the name calling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mchesh
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.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
You rodding or what :D