sex offender lists
- Thread starter Northern Sod Breaker
- Start date
You are right Sod Breaker, most people think the worst when you start talking about such a subject.
Unfortunately you suggest that people look at your post w/o bias. Are you not biased toward your buddys' situation? I think so. I wonder if the parent of the 12yr old who pressed charges was biased too? I think so.
I too am biased by my experiences. And no, I don't believe that the only sexual predators out there are the 40yr olds looking at my 13yr old. Once again, take this up and lobby for change in your area. Try and make a difference. Until something better comes along, this system is okay with me.
elkman06
Unfortunately you suggest that people look at your post w/o bias. Are you not biased toward your buddys' situation? I think so. I wonder if the parent of the 12yr old who pressed charges was biased too? I think so.
I too am biased by my experiences. And no, I don't believe that the only sexual predators out there are the 40yr olds looking at my 13yr old. Once again, take this up and lobby for change in your area. Try and make a difference. Until something better comes along, this system is okay with me.
elkman06
Well, elkman06, I did not expect your answer, but I also can't disagree with it.
Back to the SO lists and restrictions, the news stories about SOs in Miami living under a bridge got my attention and made me reconsider my feelings about such lists. Many convicts leave prison with parole conditions, which limit their movement. Then the SO laws restrict where they can live or go (i.e. near schools, or parks, or where children would gather). Then neighbors or landlords don't want them around and further limit them. What kind of irrational system do we have when we let someone out of prison and say 'you can't leave the area' but also deny them a way to stay in the area as we have dictated?
If sex offenders are so dangerous, they should stay locked up because a list of their names and addresses and paper restrictions on their activities will not protect the most vulnerable members of our society. If they are not really so dangerous, subjecting them to perpetual restrictions and punishment seems needlessly vindictive - in short, a feel-good measure rather than a necessary protection for society.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
In case anyone is wondering why I am ranting about this as of late it is because the whole town is up in arms about a sex offender wanting to move into said town. Another reason I'm gald to be 10 miles away from that town.
honkylips,
That's exaclty what this is all about. At what point is a person able to give consent? In Minn. a person can get married at 16 (parental consent still applies until 18) so at least in theory a 16 YO could marry a 40 yo old engange in physical relations and there would be no problem. but outside of marriage then all hell would break loose becuae one was a minor. As I said a few posts back, I do not support promiscuos sex. But Morality cannot not be enforced by the govt. (despite the efforts of some to convince you otherwise) My friend made a stupid decision. But given that has had a clean slate ever since why should it matter what he did in the past? Now if he repeated said actions then I would have a different take on the situation.
I still think that anyone who goes a set amount of time with out a same or similar offence should have their rights restored. If you made it say 10 years. If there were screwwed up (some are) there not going to wait ten years. But if they do go 10 years without a repeat offence it shows that they are not likely to have a repeat offence so why continue to punish them after they've served their time?
You know some of these laws, and not just those regarding the topic of this thread, Sound real good until you realize how they affect real people.
honkylips,
That's exaclty what this is all about. At what point is a person able to give consent? In Minn. a person can get married at 16 (parental consent still applies until 18) so at least in theory a 16 YO could marry a 40 yo old engange in physical relations and there would be no problem. but outside of marriage then all hell would break loose becuae one was a minor. As I said a few posts back, I do not support promiscuos sex. But Morality cannot not be enforced by the govt. (despite the efforts of some to convince you otherwise) My friend made a stupid decision. But given that has had a clean slate ever since why should it matter what he did in the past? Now if he repeated said actions then I would have a different take on the situation.
I still think that anyone who goes a set amount of time with out a same or similar offence should have their rights restored. If you made it say 10 years. If there were screwwed up (some are) there not going to wait ten years. But if they do go 10 years without a repeat offence it shows that they are not likely to have a repeat offence so why continue to punish them after they've served their time?
You know some of these laws, and not just those regarding the topic of this thread, Sound real good until you realize how they affect real people.
I wish I was so blissfully ignorant. SO's are extremely dangerous without continued, intense treatment, and without multiple means of holding them accountable. Again, find anybody who has actual working experience with sex offenders to tell me that's incorrect. Wont happen.
I realize how they affect real people, because I see the results everyday. I hear what your'e saying about finding a magic number when everything then becomes OK. It is obviously impossible to do as everybody matures (mentally and physically) differently, amongst many other factors. Bottom line is, there is no perfect way to define what is a consenting age. Given that, it is our responsibility to know the law, and our responsibility to act within the law.
Good discussion here, I hope I'm not ruffling any feathers, it's just that I've seen the damage caused by SO's, and I've seen how unbelievable more caniving and dangerous they actually are, from how they present themselves.
Ok, one last post on this and then I promise to shut up. A lot of valid points have been brought up. I am sure said list can become a noose around an individuals' neck for the rest of their days as suggested.
One thing though folks, we do the same type of thing w/ felons. While we don't persay follow them around(unless on probation), they have been stripped of the basic civil liberties that most of the populace enjoy. This however, is an entirely different subject.
Elkman06
One thing though folks, we do the same type of thing w/ felons. While we don't persay follow them around(unless on probation), they have been stripped of the basic civil liberties that most of the populace enjoy. This however, is an entirely different subject.
Elkman06
There is a reason that felons have limited rights, just as there are reasons for SO lists. While our system is far from perfect, it's the best we have right now. There is no solution that would prevent recidivism, all we can do is try to reduce it through evidence based practices.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
honkylips,
First of all I know three people who are on the SO list. Of those three not one has ever committed a sex crime twice. I suppose that a statisical anomaly though.
Second, Everyone DOES mature differently and at different ages. That is why it is (for lack of a better word) silly to put someone away simply because his "other half" was younger then a certain number.
Third, I'll agree that it is our responsibility to know the law and live within it's limits. However as mentioned above people reach mental maturity at different ages and kids will do stupid things. I'm not sure if this changed recently but it used to be if a minor commited a crime he could not be tried as an adult. The reasoning being that he lacked the mental functionuing to know different becuase of his young age.
Finaly, I am not argueing that SOs have not done damge and are a threat to society. However, If they are dangerous why do we let them out of prison while non-violent criminals rot away. (sorry for the drifting there). And what about those who are on the and not repeat offenders, who screwwed up one time. Do we just look them in the eyes and say "Sorry sir your S.O.L.?" Or do we just ignore them as just another number, a "small percentage."
First of all I know three people who are on the SO list. Of those three not one has ever committed a sex crime twice. I suppose that a statisical anomaly though.
Second, Everyone DOES mature differently and at different ages. That is why it is (for lack of a better word) silly to put someone away simply because his "other half" was younger then a certain number.
Third, I'll agree that it is our responsibility to know the law and live within it's limits. However as mentioned above people reach mental maturity at different ages and kids will do stupid things. I'm not sure if this changed recently but it used to be if a minor commited a crime he could not be tried as an adult. The reasoning being that he lacked the mental functionuing to know different becuase of his young age.
Finaly, I am not argueing that SOs have not done damge and are a threat to society. However, If they are dangerous why do we let them out of prison while non-violent criminals rot away. (sorry for the drifting there). And what about those who are on the and not repeat offenders, who screwwed up one time. Do we just look them in the eyes and say "Sorry sir your S.O.L.?" Or do we just ignore them as just another number, a "small percentage."
WTF are you talking about? I'm not a Judge and I don't turn anybody loose on society, and SO's would be the last group of people that I'd turn loose anywhere. Personally, I think a lot of SO's on community supervision are not fit to be in the community, but that's not my decision, so I don't see how I'm perfectly willing to "let them loose on society" as you say. I'll be the first to say that SO's need MUCH more than just a stern warning. They need intense, ongoing treatment, and they need to be held accountable for their fantasies, their actions, and their whereabouts.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Just so were both on the same page, could you define what a Sex Offender is according to you? Also how does the above quotation fit with 98% of those on a SO list?
Thanks,
NSB
However it is mentioned that she lied about her age. He didn't think she was 12. He thought she was 16 and thought, "16 and 16, that's cool." This person is being punished for because of someone else's actions. SHE lied, yet HE is the one being punished.
These registries have become worse than worthless. They have become counterproductive and harmful to our society.
a person convicted of one of the following offenses:
Sexual assault in the first, second or third degree;
Unlawful sexual contact;
Sexual assault on a child;
Sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust;
Sexual assault on a client by a psychotherapist;
Enticement of a child;
Incest;
Aggravated Incest;
Trafficking in children;
Sexual exploitation of children;
Procurement of a child for sexual exploitation;
Indecent exposure;
Soliciting for child prostitution;
Pandering of a child;
Procurement of a child for prostitution;
Keeping a place of child prostitution;
Pimping of a child;
Inducement of child prostitution;
Patronizing a prostituted child;
Engaging in Sexual Conduct in a Penal Institution;
Wholesale Promotion of Obscenity to Minors; and
Promotion o Obscenity to Minors
Criminal attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit any of the above offenses.
Sex offender management practices, based on available research, assume that sexual offending is a behavioral disorder which cannot be "cured." I'd say that 98% of the people on SO lists fall into the above categories and NEED ongoing, intense treatment to address their thoughts, behaviors, and fantasies.
I'm not saying anything new here. Again, talk to anybody who works in the field. Look at any of the various websites from the different states, such as;
http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/Sex_Offender/
I think the average person would be surprised at the amount of treatment that SO's are required to go through. They are forced to go through that for a reason. Again, I'm not pulling this out of my ass, by am basing my opinions on years of experience and hundreds of hours of training. I'm by NO MEANS an expert, but I do have a bit more insight and experience than the average joe.
Again, not trying to ruffle any feathers, but just trying to share my experiences on how dangerous SO's are. We all know people who may be forced to register that perhaps don't need to, but those cases are few and far between.
We all have our own opinions and views, that's what makes the world go round I suppose. It's getting late for me. Good night.
Hm, about 8 years ago my 4 year old and 5 year old daughters were in the front yard playing and I was across the street talking to a police officer in his driveway, just neighbors chatting.
Along comes a guy jogging down my street, and I wonder why, as it is a dead end and you have to go around the block to get out. The guy's face rung a bell, but I couldn't place it.
Then just as he jogged out of sight, I remembered seeing him on the SO list! So I told the officer and we were both going "hmm". I turn around and there he was again, jogging past us after having made the block and coming around again and apparently watching my daughters out of the side of his eye.
As loud as I could, I pointed right at him and holler "Hey, I know that dude! He's on the Sexual Predator's List!!!" He continued jogging and we never saw him again.
So for those of you that don't like the SO registry, you can kiss my ass! It worked for me and mine.
You come to my house and tell me to my face that you think it's ok for you're 15 year old son to have intercourse with my 13 year old daughter, and I will solve the problem immediately.
Along comes a guy jogging down my street, and I wonder why, as it is a dead end and you have to go around the block to get out. The guy's face rung a bell, but I couldn't place it.
Then just as he jogged out of sight, I remembered seeing him on the SO list! So I told the officer and we were both going "hmm". I turn around and there he was again, jogging past us after having made the block and coming around again and apparently watching my daughters out of the side of his eye.
As loud as I could, I pointed right at him and holler "Hey, I know that dude! He's on the Sexual Predator's List!!!" He continued jogging and we never saw him again.
So for those of you that don't like the SO registry, you can kiss my ass! It worked for me and mine.
You come to my house and tell me to my face that you think it's ok for you're 15 year old son to have intercourse with my 13 year old daughter, and I will solve the problem immediately.
I have to say that despite the tendency of people here to complain about that phrase due to it's use by the anti-gun crowd, doing things that are genuinely good for children is important. In fact, it's quite possibly one of the most important things any society can do. Our imperative as a species is to continue it and protecting children is paramount to that goal. Just because that phrase has been hijacked by a group you don't like doesn't mean that everything labeled as being done for the sake of children is automatically bad or hysterical.
Yeah, what's wrong is the idea that a 12 year old has the mental capacity to consent to sex. Granted, a 15 year old doesn't really grasp it either but your friend had "relations" with child younger than he was and at that stage of development three years can certainly be a significant difference.
Agreed on both counts. While your friend's case isn't really applicable because he himself was too young to understand the consequences of his actions I have no problem with jailing adult child molesters for life.
Not exactly. Some reach it years earlier, most reach it years later, and girls reach it earlier than boys. They also reach mental maturity earlier than boys. But 16-17 is too narrow a window for sexual development especially since puberty can last well into the early 20s.
True but that is significantly different than a 15 year old and a 12 year old. At younger ages and earlier developmental stages the age differences account for far greater differences in psychological and physiological maturity.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
I quess I did learn something. Everytime someone mentions "sex offender" everyone assumes he's a evil person just because he got on "the list." But what difference does it make. Everytime someone mentions a gun owner they assume he's a nut with an inching trigger finger. Yep it's all for the children, ban guns it's for the children, harrass someone who long since served their time, Pass more pollution controls, Put fluoride in the water. But hey it has to be good because it's "for the children."
Northern Sod Breaker,
Northern Sod Breaker,
Instead of having an emotional reaction to a phrase that actually makes perfect sense in might behoove you to put some critical thinking into the issue.Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Redworm, You snuck in there some how. But in responce to your above post. Yes The "For the children" attitude when in MODERATION can accomplish good. But at the present time it is being taken to the extreme. How is is labeling everyone on the SO list as "bad" any different then labeling all gun owners as bad? My above post was satirical,
I still hold the oppinion I held when I started this thread. Not everyone on the Sex Offender list is a sexual predator. Those who are sexual predators should be locked away in the most conveniently located mental facility. However how is it right or just to discriminate against someone who is trying to change their ways to become a productive citisen. My brother in law is another example. Everytime he gets a decent job his probation officer finds some lame a** excuse jails him and he looses his job and has to start over again. Granted this is not related to SO Lists but the logic is the same. It seems contradictory. On the one hand we say we want to rehabilitate them but with the other hand we hit in the knees with every chance we get.
I still hold the oppinion I held when I started this thread. Not everyone on the Sex Offender list is a sexual predator. Those who are sexual predators should be locked away in the most conveniently located mental facility. However how is it right or just to discriminate against someone who is trying to change their ways to become a productive citisen. My brother in law is another example. Everytime he gets a decent job his probation officer finds some lame a** excuse jails him and he looses his job and has to start over again. Granted this is not related to SO Lists but the logic is the same. It seems contradictory. On the one hand we say we want to rehabilitate them but with the other hand we hit in the knees with every chance we get.
I agree with you on every point, I'm just saying that people here - namely gun owners - need to stop vilifying the phrase "for the children". There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting the concerns of our youth above all others and just because some political groups have claimed that their mistaken agendas will help children does not mean there's anything wrong with the phrase itself.
You're right, not everyone on the sex offenders registry is a bad person. Then again not everyone that's in jail is a bad person. Not everyone that commits a crime is a bad person. Laws don't dictate morality and too many people forget that. The entire justice system is rife with this erroneous attitude and needs to be fixed, the SO registry happens to be one of the most visible aspects of it.
You're right, not everyone on the sex offenders registry is a bad person. Then again not everyone that's in jail is a bad person. Not everyone that commits a crime is a bad person. Laws don't dictate morality and too many people forget that. The entire justice system is rife with this erroneous attitude and needs to be fixed, the SO registry happens to be one of the most visible aspects of it.
I have a grandson that was held back in school, and is a very popular young man, stand out athlete, and chased by the young girls. He has even been tackled by girls. I dread when he turns 18, and the wrong head takes charge. All we can do now is counsel him and Pray he makes it through OK.
I have long believed that there should be a very discrete counseling program for anyone who has sexual feelings towards children. I just can't help but think if "some" of them can get help without the stigma of sexual deviant, "BEFORE" an act has taken place, that the list may come up a little shorter. Once someone crosses the line, Even a list to good for them. someone now has to live a life of traumatic memories (at the bare minimum) for some perverts self gratification.
I have long believed that there should be a very discrete counseling program for anyone who has sexual feelings towards children. I just can't help but think if "some" of them can get help without the stigma of sexual deviant, "BEFORE" an act has taken place, that the list may come up a little shorter. Once someone crosses the line, Even a list to good for them. someone now has to live a life of traumatic memories (at the bare minimum) for some perverts self gratification.