• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How much punishment is enough?

Joshua Korosi said:
It is a highly unusual type of crime. And no, it is not impossible to live legally in urban areas, except in one or two very extreme cases which have made the national news because they are so rare. It is merely inconvenient for some child molesters who then have to move. To which I say, the inconvenience belongs to them, bought and paid for.
Click to expand...

That varies greatly by local. Some areas have overlapping zones where these ex-cons are effectively unable to live within the city limits. Is there any evidence that shows this prevents recitivism? Are there sufficent legal grounds to restrict child molesters this way, but not rapists, murderers, thieves, and drug dealers?

Ick factor is not a legal argument. I think it's a heinous crime, but there are plenty of heinous crimes that aren't punished in this exotic way. What does this accomplish?
 
You're questioning whether the lack of available victims has anything to do with a predator's lack of reoffense. I propose a common-sense relationship between the two. Consider WHY the recidivism rate is supposed to be so low: do any child molesters molest more kids while they're in prison? Of course not. A pedophile cannot molest kids if there are no kids there to molest.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
It is a highly unusual type of crime. And no, it is not impossible to live legally in urban areas, except in one or two very extreme cases which have made the national news because they are so rare. It is merely inconvenient for some child molesters who then have to move. To which I say, the inconvenience belongs to them, bought and paid for.
Click to expand...

And then you have a situation where convicted child molesters can't find anywhere to live legally, so they wind up homeless, making them impossible to keep track of.

Good job!
 
Wrong. As I said, the "can't live anywhere legally" argument is bogus. A simple check of your area's listings in your state's sex offender registry will prove more than adequately that they can obviously find plenty of places to live legally.
 
Beerina said:
Only if she's good looking. If she's ugly, she suffers same as a man.

Nope, everything is as it should be.

Speaking of this, in a number of states, they're rounding up sex offenders for Halloween night. Either via long curfews, if not outright spending the night in custody.

While I have no problem with this "just in case", I do wonder if there are a rash of kinappings and/or sexual abuse on Halloween as opposed to any other night of the year. In other words, is this a response to problems on Halloween in years past, or is it just a target of opportunity thanks to these lists and the ever-growing outrage to Keep Them Out Of My Community.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose that's true. In my day, we had a name for guys who got laid by the "cute" teacher: lucky bastards. That's certainly how I felt when I had that experience (tho not with a teacher, just a hot older girl).

Today they are "victims."

No, that's not as it should be. The cute ones should get the same time as the ugly uns and both kind should get the same time as the men.

We ARE a fully-feminized culture, are we not? We've been told for decades that there is no difference--save a bit of plumbing--'twixt and 'tween men and wymyn, so why the mollycoddling?

RE: Halloween Roundup: no. Just like the urban legends about razors and such in apples and candy, or that more wymyn are abused on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year, these morons are simply responding to their own stupidity. Next thing you know, they'll all be getting rich from some Nigerian ex-general.

Tokie
 
ImaginalDisc said:
But being kept a good distance away from banks is not a fitting punishment for bank robbers? Being kept a fitting distance away from women is not a fitting punishment for a men who had raped an adult woman?

Isn't our treatment of pedophiles highly unusual? Doesn't it effectively make it impossible for them to live in urban areas legally?
Click to expand...

Good points (for a refreshing change!). It does. But our culture pays lip-service to the belief that this is a special class of crime...meanwhile, we continue to sexualize younger and younger children, anon.

Tokie
 
Joshua Korosi said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

Right.

As I said, the "can't live anywhere legally" argument is bogus.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect.

A simple check of your area's listings in your state's sex offender registry will prove more than adequately that they can obviously find plenty of places to live legally.
Click to expand...

Ooh, I'm the wrong person to try to tell that to. Y'see, here in Georgia, the cops have been campaigning against this silly legislation for exactly the reason I outlined.

It's not just schools sex offenders can't live near--but any place children might congregate. Playgrounds, concert venues, shopping malls, churches--churches. You may not be aware of just how many churches there are in the South, but if you can't live near a church--you pretty much can't live anywhere.
 

*sigh* yet more bickering posts moved to AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cleon
 
Cleon said:
Right.



You are incorrect.



Ooh, I'm the wrong person to try to tell that to. Y'see, here in Georgia, the cops have been campaigning against this silly legislation for exactly the reason I outlined.

It's not just schools sex offenders can't live near--but any place children might congregate. Playgrounds, concert venues, shopping malls, churches--churches. You may not be aware of just how many churches there are in the South, but if you can't live near a church--you pretty much can't live anywhere.
Click to expand...


Yep. It's exactly the sort of thing you see the nannyists doing with drinking, continually lowering the blood-alcohol level that will get you in trouble.

Here, they were trying to get it lowered to, in effect, a level that meant you could not have a glass of wine or a beer with a meal.

When is enough enough, PCers?

Tokie
 
Cleon said:
It's not just schools sex offenders can't live near--but any place children might congregate. Playgrounds, concert venues, shopping malls, churches--churches. You may not be aware of just how many churches there are in the South, but if you can't live near a church--you pretty much can't live anywhere.
Click to expand...


They knew it was coming, Cleon; they knew it and didn't care, they decided to do it anyway. Their loss, not mine.
 
Tokenconservative said:
Two possibilities: she is being sardonic, or understands that in a forum like this, rife as it is with PCers ready to leap on any percieved slight (some spineless wuss, for example, just ran to a mod because I called him "numbnuts" after he called me "nimrod"....LOL!) she knows that if she uses the reviled "C-word" it's likely to get her invited to a cookout...

Tokie
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
It is a highly unusual type of crime. And no, it is not impossible to live legally in urban areas, except in one or two very extreme cases which have made the national news because they are so rare. It is merely inconvenient for some child molesters who then have to move. To which I say, the inconvenience belongs to them, bought and paid for.
Click to expand...

It does not matter if it is a highly unusual crime it should be treated like any other crime unless it is indeed always an incurable sickness in which case they should be sent to a specialized, and secure, facility.

But that's only if you can prove that absolutely 100%, not 80% or 90% or even 99%, are incurable.

We should only punish people for what they've done not what they might do in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom