• 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.

Registering Sex Offenders

headscratcher4

Philosopher
headscratcher4
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Messages
7,776
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215...DMZ_Gus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

I saw this item this morning on the AP. Basically, a man in Michigan (how nice for my home state!) was being sentenced for dirty deeds done dirty with a sheep. The judge informed him that upon his release from jail, he will have to register as a "sex" offender. Sheep-lover, needless to say, was concerned that he is not a threat to children, etc. so he shouldn't have to register.

It struck me as an interesting point. I have mixed feeling about registering sex-offenders. On the one hand, it clearly seems to perpetuate a sentence long after someone seemingly has served their time. On the other, if -- especially with pediphiles -- I had kids, I'd want to know that the new guy down the block just got out after doing ten for abusing a child.

However, do I need to know -- regardless where you come down on the above senario -- that the guy down the block abused sheep?

Thoughts? Is someone who is an abuser of animals a "sex" offender in the same sence as someone who abuses humans?

I'm not suggesting this isn't a crime, merely that it seems to me to be of a differnent quality -- in terms of on-going threats to the entire community -- than does the sex crimes that normally seem to be the object of registration laws.
 
I have a dog. So, yes. I want to know if the guy down the street has designs on my dog, who is unable to give consent.

I am not sure if I'm kidding.
 
Do sheep lovers have a code? "Yeah, I'll do a sheep, but kids? That's sick!"
 
If he's still dangerous, why is he out of prison?

If he's no longer dangerous, why does he have to register?
 
Agreed, the whole thing is pretty sick. Indeed, there may be some sort of reserach regarding propensity to abuse...if you can do it to an animal than a child/woman/man is potentially a target. In that case, it would seem to me that the law should possibly apply.

And, of course, I don't want to be a bleating heart ("bleating" get it?), but the reason for the registration, in the abstract, seems to me to be premised on the potential danger posed to the community...are sheep now considered part of the community (there's a joke here about re-electing Bush, or maybe any politician that I am too high minded to make)?

I really don't know what you do with someone like this...what stops him from doing it again? What stops any sex offender? But, if he -- in the best judgement of experts -- doesn't pose a problem to humans, should he be registered?
 
headscratcher4 said:
Agreed, the whole thing is pretty sick. Indeed, there may be some sort of reserach regarding propensity to abuse...if you can do it to an animal than a child/woman/man is potentially a target. In that case, it would seem to me that the law should possibly apply.
Click to expand...
I agree that data is key here -- this is one of those political issue which can be approached scientifically, even if it's can't be resolved that way.
 
This is the part I don't get:

Tamara Towns, an assistant prosecutor for the county, argued that Haynes should be ordered to register as a sex offender because once out of prison, he could prey on children or vulnerable adults.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all. If someone has a thing for sheep, I would guess that they are probably LESS likely to attack humans. In fact, if the county wants to keep this guy out of trouble, they should provide him with a sheep.
 
BPSCG said:
If he's still dangerous, why is he out of prison?

If he's no longer dangerous, why does he have to register?
Click to expand...

Why does any conviction stay on "your record" which any potential employer can look up?
 
shemp said:
That makes no sense at all. If someone has a thing for sheep, I would guess that they are probably LESS likely to attack humans. In fact, if the county wants to keep this guy out of trouble, they should provide him with a sheep.
Click to expand...
The thought -- and again I'd like to see supporting data if it exists, is that sheepfuc, uh, lovers have an attraction to living things which are incapable of granting meaningful consent as opposed to an attraction to that one species.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
I'm sure the punsters will fleece it for all it's worth.
Click to expand...

Alas, such woolly-headed thinking will resullt in a stampead into a hurd mentality...

On a more serious note...does anyone know the data issue? Are those who abuse animals in this fashion likely to migrate to people? Or, given that animals may be more "controllable" than people, are they more likely to return to animal abuse as relatively risk free behavior?
 
headscratcher4 said:
On a more serious note...does anyone know the data issue? Are those who abuse animals in this fashion likely to migrate to people? Or, given that animals may be more "controllable" than people, are they more likely to return to animal abuse as relatively risk free behavior?
Click to expand...

Probably the latter. I can only guess, and I pity the researcher who ever decides to look into it.

Interviewing sheep lovers. Not high on my job wish list.
 
[Bad Joke]
I was walking along the western shore of Scotland one day, when cresting a hill; I saw a red headed Scotsman sitting on a rock. As I approached him, he puffed away on his pipe and seemed to be fuming over something. I asked him what was the matter. He pointed at the town below.

"Diya see those houses down there? I thatched everyone of the those roofs with me bare hands, but do they call me ‘Angus, The Thatcher’? No! Diya see those roads down there? I laid each cobblestone with me bare hands, but do they call me ‘Angus, The Road Builder?’ No."

He took a long puff on his pipe, and turned to me, "But ye **** one sheep...."
[/Bad Joke]

Seriously though, I think these sex offender laws are partly based on an arbitrary religous sense of perversion more than the threat the criminal poses, the efficacy of the system not withstanding.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
[Bad Joke]


Seriously though, I think these sex offender laws are partly based on an arbitrary religous sense of perversion more than the threat the criminal poses, the efficacy of the system not withstanding.
Click to expand...

Again, not sure I completely agree with these laws, but in their defence, I do think that there is significant information that some offenders have a propensity toward repeating their crimes...when this involves children, it is particularly bad...so while they may be pushed by the "moral" values crowd, I think there is a genuine concern for safety of the community. The question, it seems to me is whether registration is the best, most effective method ... but I do think there are legitimate --non-religiously based -- causes for concern about certain offenders.
 
headscratcher4 said:
On a more serious note...does anyone know the data issue? Are those who abuse animals in this fashion likely to migrate to people?
Click to expand...

The problem is releasing Hoof and Mouth Disease into the general population. Somehow the use of a Lambskin condom seems wrong to me.

Was this guys nickname Ram-bo by any chance?
 
All you need to know:
 

Attachments

  • iowa.JPG
    iowa.JPG
    22.3 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Hey, give the guy a sheep and maybe he'll remove himself from the genepool by not reproducing with humans. If he's horn-y he's going to ram something, don't ewe think?

He won't be a problem, he's probably feeling pretty sheepish about it all. Putting him on a sex offender list is just bull. Would putting him on the list cow any other offenders from trying other species? This isn't a subject to kid around with... they really got his goat. Now let him be, stop milking it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom