Should the identity of those who have a history of sexually abusing children be disclosed to the community?

There is a known sex-offender who has been approaching children attending a particular elementary school in the area. That is all the information given by the local police. Should the offender's description, picture, name, age, address, etc... be disclosed to the parents so that they can better inform their young children of the danger involved by associating with this individual in particular?

As far as I know, the Canadian public is told about sex offenders in their community. I can recall multiple cases where sex offenders have tried to settle into quiet lives in rural Alberta towns, only to be forced out by hostility from townspeople.

This is how it should be, in my opinion. There's no reason to protect these criminals.


[This message has been edited by DaveW (edited November 02, 1999).]

Under no circumstances should this become standard policy, to disclose the names of sex offenders who have already been through the penal system.

On one hand, their names are already known as sex offenders; their arrest and trial are part of the public record--well, at least among the United States. To announce their arrival in a community seems, given the reactions of modern, civilized persons, to be furthering their punishment in a manner outside the US Constitution.

There is a factor I'm reluctant to introduce here, because it is a process of hysteria, and based on an assumption. The assumption is that these sex offenders are somehow more dangerous to society than other kinds of criminals. Perhaps. But potheads, poets, and priests have all been deemed more dangerous than your average pickpocket or murderer at various points in history. Does this mean we need to trump every drug offender the way we want to treat the sex offenders? And that is the hysteria part of it: how far can it go--will we be announcing embezzlers, drug dealers, and so forth?

I also have a problem with this idea because in many of the cases, the difference between a "sex offender" and a "regular joe" is the idea of "getting caught". There are definitely sex crimes. And then there is an ambiguous zone, as well. And it's these offenders that I worry about. In my life I've seen child rapists turned loose because "nobody heard the child protesting", or "the child behaved promiscuously (at age 3)". But I've also seen good men strung up before the public for making mistakes. Besides, given the various laws regarding sexual acts, a registered sex offender could be a child rapist or someone who wanted his wife to give him fellatio (you'll notice that, when cunninlinguis is the question in these states, the man is still arrested.)

As much as various crimes bug me, I'm often left to wonder about society's reaction. They love to punish sex crimes, but they don't want to educate about sexuality. We fear for our children's sexuality, but encourage a perverse pop-culture that has us accepting 12 year-old girls as sexually attractive in order to hawk perfume to 60-year old women.

So I'm left to ask a number of questions:
* Does "sex offenders" include prostitutes and their johns?
* What is the point of a penal system if it's left to society to actively prevent a convict's reintegration to society?
* If the penal system is pointless and it is society's job to actively frustrate convict reintegration, why are we paying public funds for prisons?

In the United States, we have a specific Constitutional provision which restricts "cruel and unusual punishments, excessive fines and bails". Since we're all guilty of crimes daily in this country, it's probably not a good idea to start trumping up peoples sins this way. They're already on the record: if Mom & Dad don't care enough about their kids to watch that portion of the record, we certainly don't need to go out of our way to fuel these peoples' otherwise apathetic rage.

There is a crime, there is a trial, a verdict, and a sentence. End of story. Elsewise, the courts are really just a feelgood exercise in futility.

thx
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

surpise, surpise. In California all convicted sex offenders in your area can be known by simply asking the police. Some have even gone as far to suggest that signs be put up in front of their homes. This is a good idea. I say fuck em.

I also think that imprinting sex offenders with a scarlet letter for life is excessive punishment.

If it's a reformable behavior, then what is the point of punishing people when they have already passed through their sentence, and (hopefully) reformed themselves?

If it's a clinical condition, then what is the point of punishing mental patients who can't help their urges? If they are indeed pathological, sex offenders should be confined to mental institutions, as are all mentally ill people who either can't sustain themselves, or present a danger to society.

In addition, Tiassa has a good point on the ever-present seething ocean of public hysteria, subdued most of the time, but always ready to be unleashed with the slightest prodding.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Sex offenders should have their genitalia ripped off. Repeat sex offenders should be gang-raped by homosexual horses and THEN have their genitalia ripped off. Sex offenders of any sort who go after children should be gang-raped by homosexual horses while being spanked by a sadistic monkey and THEN have their genitalia ripped off. Anybody who is INTO this sort of thing should be shot.

Quickly.

Oxygen,

Good show. Now, imagine the sex offender is a member of <u>your</u> family (an offspring of yours, perhaps, like a son). And don't even tell me that it would never happen to *you*, because nobody is in full control over other people or their hidden desires.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Borris,
Ok, what if that sex offender raped your daughter or a loved one??????????
Why protect the criminal????? You think this is excessive punishment??? What of the victims baggage that is left that they have to deal with which was caused by the very dude you want to protect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You honestly think that in a year or so it will be all forgotton on the vitims part? You think this would not effect them in every
possible way???????????
Something is just not right when we look out for the person who did the dirty deed and
forget about the welfare of other future
victims.

Oxygen,
I agree with you all the way! I think that they should super glue the dudes nasty dick to the floor...place a bomb in the room..give him a butcher knife with all of
45 seconds to decide if he wants to be blown sky high or escape!

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited November 03, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited November 03, 1999).]

Oxygen--

Do you live in the US? If so, thank you for demonstrating the exact reason we have Constitutional provisions against excesses in the application of justice. What do we gain from that kind of savagery except the satisfaction that we are somehow better than a mutilated corpse?

What happens, say, if the offender is a Catholic priest? Do we rape him with horses and cut off his genitalia inside the church?

Oh, wait a minute ... we could take all of the speeders and DUI convicts and run them over with trucks, but only after slicing out their tongues, pouring acid into their bellies, and ripping their livers out with a coathanger.

Ooh, and we could put unconscientious tobacco users on the stake and burn 'em burn 'em burn 'em!

I'm generally glad to live in the United States. I think our Constitution and its Amendments are among the Union's greatest assets. Unfortunately for some of our "better than thou" brethren, that means we can't exactly revert to the middle ages and just throw people on the rack again.

I might remind all here that definitions of sex crimes are ludicrously inadequate. When I was in college in '93, we heard about a policy at a school on the east coast where each "stage" of the sexual encounter must be queried by the male and approved by the female. "Yes" is the required answer. "Do you mind if I unhook your bra?" "No, I don't mind." Guess what .... unhook that bra, and you're a sex offender.

Yeah, let's tear that poor sot's balls off and feed them to the righteous dogs.

--Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

According to the local police, the individual in the real-life example above, in the US, has a history of sexually abusing young children.

Many judges are now bcoming more enlightened to the fact that there is no cure for pedophilia and many are aware of the extreme difficulty in treating criminal pedophiles adequately so that they pose no inherent danger to children in our society. As a result, many judges are now leaning towards prohibiting criminal pedophiles, as a condition of their release, from ever having contact with children within the preferred victim age of the particular pedophile, and many judges are also ordering continued lifetime therapy for those afflicted with the disease. This approach might not please everyone... It might even seem like a lifetime sentence to some, however, considering the extreme difficulty which criminal pedophiles have in controlling their urges and the resulting danger to defenseless young children in our society, I find such an approach to be a reasonable compromise.

In the particular case above, it seems that such restrictions were not a term of this criminal pedophile's release and he/she is currently active in approaching young children in the same age group of previous victims. Due to the lack of restrictions upon this criminal pedophile's release, supposedly there is nothing that can be done legally until he/she actually hurts another child. Given the fact that no continued therapy was ordered, law enforcement officials consider it only a matter of time before another child is victimized and so they have issued a general warning to parents in the community. Knowing what we now do about criminal pedophilia, should parents in this particular community be chastised in their effort to obtain information about the local criminal pedophile to fulfill their legal obligation to protect their young children when the courts have failed, albeit perhaps, due to lack of information/education on the part of the particular judge in the case? Without such information, in an effort to protect, the freedom of the young children of this community and their families will be severely restricted.

Is this restriction of the freedom of an entire community of young children and their families necessary and is it equitable to impose such restrictions in an effort to protect the privacy of the criminal pedophile? Who knows where he/she came from? How would one go about searching the public records? He/she could could have migrated from anywhere...

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 03, 1999).]

TrueStory--

Are we assuming that "known sex offender" means "child rapist"? In this case, the lack of restrictions on contact with minors is either a direct fault of the court that sentenced him, or else a technicality that arises when we apply broad terms like "known sex offender". What was this person's original crime?

Normally, I would say yes, the police should move forward if a "known child rapist" is attempting contact with children. But for that to work, we need to include such language in the sentence.

In the example you've given, as to the question of whether parents should be "chastised" in their efforts to "protect their young children", I'm inclined to ask if every resource of the public record has been exhausted. Although people keep coming back to it, it's important: the information already exists in the public record. So it seems that, on the one hand, yes, parents care; on the other, they don't care so much to go even slightly out of their routine to get the information. They want it spoon-fed to them by the government.

One of the operating realities here is that, among the United States, at least, Justice is supposed to be blind. Much like every sin weighs the same with God, so must it be with Justice. Certes, we have varying sentences reflecting the perceived severity of the crime, but when a sentence is ended, a sentence is ended. Lifetime therapy for a pedophile is no different as a "sentence" than lifetime therapy for a paranoid-schizophrenic arsonist. When it's appropriate, it's appropriate. But the American mass psychology is that of a vigilante. People often go out of their way to aggravate a bad situation.

What freedom is being restricted entire communities? Where I live, that concept flies in the face of true liberty. To suspend the freedom of a given minority element to appease the majority is a horrible concept that has been counterproductive to social progression. And here comes the near-paradox: It is not illegal to have pedophilic emotions; as sick as it sounds, that state of mind is not against the law. It is the act itself, committed unto another person. History shows you cannot write a perfect exception to an imperfect principle. If we make that particular mode of thinking illegal, then all thought is, by precedent, subject to judicial and legislative approval. If we remove the repugnance of the subject matter, say, change it to armed robbery, what then? Should it be illegal to consider--merely consider--the possibility of gathering funds via the bullet? Should it be illegal to feel that a given group, labeled "terrorist", might have a point? Should it be illegal to deal with your own demons?

With freedom comes responsibility. Unfortunately, that responsibility means you have to go out of your way sometimes. Certain crimes are the result of societal climate; by that I mean that various horrors are the natural byproduct of human society. Preferably, I would rather find the device that creates such widespread pedophilia, but the root of the problem, I'm sure, would scare us all into denial. Actually, to be honest, I believe it already has. We can go on "protecting" our children from from a menacing spectre, or we can slay, wound, cripple, or otherwise disable the most part of the spectre's ability to function.

We can't stop every child rapist--unless of course, we want to steal children from their parents and raise them with robots. But we can figure out what, within society, is causing so many people to fail to reconcile the conflicts that motivate their unacceptable behavior. Maybe we can hobble the process.

But I still think advertising a duck pond to a bloodthirsty society of hunters is just a bad, bad idea.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Tiassa,


According to the local police, the individual in the real-life example above, in the US, has a history of sexually abusing young children.

The individual in question has previously been convicted of perpetrating sexual abuse upon children (multiple). Sorry, I don't have the gory details to share with you and the legal system rarely uses the term "rape" with regards to sexual crimes committed against young children. I don't know why, though, because in almost all or these cases involving young children an adult "force" is at work. What more do you need to know?

Although I would not expect you to answer this, I am wondering if you have any children, any maternal/paternal instincts or even any idea of what it takes to protect your young in this day and age? Please inform us - In what way does a concerned parent go about "exhausting" the public record? How long does the "exhaustion" process take? How often does one go through this process? Annually? Semi-annually? Monthly? Weekly? Daily? How do you go about getting information about convicted child sexual predators who committed their criminal acts prior to the onset of the registration requirements?

At first you indicate that parents care in a way, yet you go on to say:


...they don't care so much to go even slightly out of their routine to get the information. They want it spoon-fed to them by the government.

Where does this statement come from? You think you "know" what efforts the parents in this community have/haven't made? It sounds like more of the negative stereotypical generalizations which seem to abound in your posts lately.

There is no one in fear of someone else's "thoughts" be they those of a pedophile or otherwise. There is no "thought" police at work here, Tiassa. Where you got that idea, I'm sure I'll never know.

The concern of law-enforcement in the area is that this person is in the process of acting out and, without psychological counselling or legal restrictions against contact with young children, experience tells them that it is only a matter of time before another child is victimized by this person. Minimize it as much as you want, Tiassa, and turn the "parents" into blood-thirsty hunters in your mind if it somehow makes you feel better. Please keep in mind, though, that it is not the parents who are interested in the "hunt," it is their children who are the prey and whom they are trying to protect.

tiassa- Have you ever been raped? Do you KNOW what it feels like to have someone invade your body so violently, deaf to, and probably getting excited by, your screams of protest? Have you ever had someone else's sperm spat out inside your body, knowing that you will NEVER be clean of the vileness now within you? Have you ever had something shoved up a bodily orifice where it simply shouldn't be? Have you ever experienced any of these sensations? How far has anyone gone down YOUR throat while you cried, gagging on semen while they laughed? Do you know the feeling? Do you?

I hope you can stay on your high horse (homosexual or not) and never be dragged into it. Never mind. I hope someday you feel the shame and disgust of this experience. May you feel all of the violation. Then let's see how forgiving and civil you are.

Boris- If the offender was a member of my family, I'd go get the horses and the monkey. I don't put up with that sort of crap from anybody. I'd rather they were dead than have that sort of disease living and associated with me.

I am not so blinded by my fury to think that my family is somehow perfect. If they were, I'd be posting their activities in the Paranormal forum.

Flash- Thank you. That's a lovely idea. If I can hunt one of the bastards down, do you want to bring the super-glue, the knife, or the bomb?

Tiassa, and Boris,

Our Constitution and its Amendments are a great assest but easily misinturpited. For example the 2nd. amendment the wording is clear but yet it's meaning is twisted to no end. On top of that it stated that these amendments are not to be changed or removed but yet there has already been talk of changing the entire Constitution.

As for cruel and unusual punishment. I don't see it as such! The victims had no choice and the perpetrator decided to change the lives of both parties for ever. He/she should be forced to be tormented with his choice of action for the same length of time!

If he was a member of my family I still feel the same. As a matter of fact one was a member of my family. One of my Uncles was child molester and the rest of the family covered up for him by never speaking of his actions. Even though they knew of this they chose to do nothing. I never had the misfortune of being alone in the same room as him becuase my mother allways kept me at her side when he was around, but chose do nothing more. I was the one who finally stood up called the police and gave them his current address and phone number. Thankfully the bastard never saw the light of day again and was murdered while in prison! :)

Our current statutes are not perfect. You point this out for us Tiassa. The definition for a sexual offender is way to loose. In fact need to be broken down into categories. So that it is much clearer of which sex crime they commited. The fact that one can do jail time for unhooking a gal's bra when her reply was "I don't mind" is absolutely ludicrous!!!

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born

Oxygen,
LOL...Tell ya what..I'll bring all three!
I just cannot believe some of the responses in this thread!

Hey, I didn't mean to put a thumbs down!
That was suppose to have been a thumbs up!!
My fault...sorry :)

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited November 04, 1999).]

You done good, 666. :)

Years ago, a young family member was drugged and then raped by a repeat "offender"... Although the physical evidence was available, because of the drugs, the police determined that the victim could not give a clear account on the witness stand and decided not to go forward with the case. Another family member, who was schooled in martial arts, came across the known "offender" unexpectedly one night in the men's room of a local restaurant and proceeded to beat the "offender" to near death. The offender spent quite a bit of time "recovering" in the hospital, never turned the "beater" in because he knew who he was and why he beat him. The offender was subsequently tried and convicted and is doing time for another sexual offense. Was the beating in the bathroom "right"? Legal?... No. It certainly was somewhat cathartic though and helped the victim and a number of family members to get on with their lives.

What comes around goes around in some form or another. You may not see it as right TS..but at least the guy got some punishment out of it... actually, he got off lucky.

You might be right, Flash. Actually, according to the "beater" he was about to administer the "death blow" when a friend with whom he was dining heard the commotion, entered the rest room, saw what was going on (but he didn't know why) and swiftly escorted the family member off the premises. Who knows...? Maybe an early death would have been too good for the rapist?

Let's think about this... Perhaps what he was dishing out is now coming back to him in prison?

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 04, 1999).]

TS,
Well that would all depend on how much the jerk suffers here on earth.

Now you're talking TS :)

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited November 04, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited November 04, 1999).]

Oxygen, Truestory ....

Answer #1: No, I've never been subjected to rape. I'm quite sure that there are people among the posters at this board who have suffered the crime themselves. However, would you care whether or not someone was raped if they agreed with you? Seems to me that if my having been raped or not in the past affects the credibility of my answer, so it goes for all of us lucky ones.

Answer #2: Truestory--you're the one who wants to act on the potential of this convict to commit another crime. That requires policing thoughts. That requires knowing what that convict is thinking, and acting on it, without evidence of the crime itself taking place. Where did I get the idea of thought police? It's a natural conclusion of what you're asking for. Yes, I know recidivism is rampant among sex offenders. But to act from that simple factoid is to go forth using a statistical model to predict human behavior. Need I explain what's wrong with that?

Answer #3: Truestory--I have no idea how many times a parent should go about "exhausting" their options for data. However, it seems it's just a matter of inconvenience. Perhaps instead of parents waiting for the police to come around and say, "Protect your children", and then go hurl bricks or whatever ... well, maybe we can start looking, as a society, for ways to decrease the number of assaults that take place. It's all good to be upset about a problem, but it seems to me that we're not doing much to change the problem itself. We're just trying to make ourselves feel better about it. But that goes beyond merely reporting offenders. That reaches all the way down to the core of our judicial system, the heart of our spiritual vision, and the base factors of our moral assumptions.

Response: Truestory--it doesn't make me feel any better or worse to turn parents into bloodthirsty hunters. It does, however, seem to make THEM feel much better.

Response: Oxygen--OK, breathe now. Do you feel better after that tirade? The difference between us here seems to be that you really want to perceive that I wish society ill, while you are entirely capable of wishing the worst onto people. Judging by the tone and content of that post, this has nothing to do with society at large, but rather with you. Otherwise, you would know better than to write some of the dumb things you did.

***

Gee, I'm really sorry I like the American Constitution. If y'all don't like it, change it. Whatever nation you live in, if you're not happy with how the law treats sex offenders, change the damn law. It's not impossible. It's actually quite easy. But the fact is that, at least in the US, the convict's sentence ends when it ends. Every brick thrown, window broken, toilet paper roll strung out, graffitto painted, ad nauseum--is just a bunch of bloodthirsty criminals harrassing a citizen, in the eyes of the law.

But it's simple: No cruel and unusual punishment--no matter what the crime. We "protect the criminals" (as such), because the "good people" have demonstrated throughout history that we need to protect the criminals. If it weren't for bloodlusting mobs of people setting fires and throwing bricks, maybe we wouldn't have to.

And yes, it sucks. But it's like anything else that sucks. You live with it if you can, change it if you can't. But will you cry when you spend the rest of your life in jail because your righteous rock hit the cheap bastard in the head and killed him?

So, to review: Don't like the law? Change it. Otherwise, you're nothing better than a vigilante, which idea has its' merits. But then what voice will you have when the anarchy spreads, as anarchy must? Once you've sown, will you be happy with the harvest?

--Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Tiassa,

I find your position to be extremism at it's best.


Answer #2: Truestory--you're the one who wants to act on the potential of this convict to commit another crime. That requires policing thoughts. That requires knowing what that convict is thinking, and acting on it, without evidence of the crime itself taking place. Where did I get the idea of thought police? It's a natural conclusion of what you're asking for. Yes, I know recidivism is rampant among sex offenders. But to act from that simple factoid is to go forth using a statistical model to predict human behavior. Need I explain what's wrong with that?

What I am looking for is reasonableness, tiassa. Your statement that recidivism is the simple factoid is extreme. This particular individual is apparently exhibiting behavior (taking action) which is evidence of the "crime in progress". After a meeting with local law enforcement, what we do know now is that he is single, has moved into an elementary school community where more than 600 children "walk" to school, is getting up and going out in the mornings to interact with the children on a personal level and has attempted to gain the confidence of a number of childrenn already. It is part of his criminal modus operandi. Only for the timing of this individual's previous criminal activity is he shielded from being arrested for his current activity. I am not looking to hurt the criminal, tiassa, and from what I have seen of the parents, niether are they. The parents are requesting information so that they can inform their children how to readily identify this individual so that the children can be better informed and more aware of who this child-endangerer is. You have no first-hand knowledge of this situation, yet you attribute negative intennt on the part of the parents. Now who is acting as the thought police? The image of blood-thirst, fires and brick-throwing is an extreme reaction which you, alone, are conjuring up in your mind. What possible harm could come to the criminal from the parents being able to describe this man to their children and telling them to stay away/get away from him as quickly as possible if they see him on the street? If that is cruel and unusual punishment of the criminal to you, then I can understand how you perceive those who protect criminals as the "good guys" and those who protect children as the "bad guys."


Answer #3: Truestory--I have no idea how many times a parent should go about "exhausting" their options for data. However, it seems it's just a matter of inconvenience.

You have answered my question, tiassa. You don't have a clue...


Perhaps instead of parents waiting for the police to come around and say, "Protect your children", and then go hurl bricks or whatever ... well, maybe we can start looking, as a society, for ways to decrease the number of assaults that take place.

Again with the "hurling bricks"... That's a good idea, though, tiassa... find ways to decrease the number of assaults... hmmm... being readily able to tell your children who the convicted child-molester is would be a GREAT deterent and would decrease the number of assaults that take place upon children.

I guess we all choose our priorities, tiassa... you choose to protect the criminal at all costs, including the liberty and lives of innocent children in this case. The parents choose to protect their children with readily available information. Yeah, I have to agree... that makes you the "good person" and them the "bad people"... NOT.

Hey, if you don't have any children to take care of and have some extra time on your hands, could you get busy and start trying to change the laws? ;)



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 04, 1999).]

How about this?

Check <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/04/sex.offenders.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/04/sex.offenders.ap/index.html</A>. A perfect example of scarlet letter gone awry. It also mentions a certain frequency of vigilante violence associated with sex offender registries. I think Tiassa just got a little factual boost to his arguments...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 04, 1999).]

Truestory:

When I was 14, I was told that my views on Free Speech were extreme. Why? Because I thought putting "warning" labels on records was a knee-jerk reaction. When I was 17, I was called an extremist because I thought the most part of my Catholic high school was laughably hypocritical. When I was 19, I was called extremist for supporting the idea of medicinal marijuana--and recreational use hadn't become a factor in that particular exchange yet.

Now I'm extremist because I don't want a society of vigilantes running around, arbitrarily exacting justice when the laws--approved either directly or by proxy by the people--fail a group of individuals' expectations.

We come again, in your example, to the language of the criminals' sentence. If there is no provision restricting his contact with minors, it's the fault of the law. If there is such a provision--and I have been led to believe that there is not--then I have no quarrel with police action to deter further crimes.

What recidivism studies look at, simply, is how many convicts commit another crime within their prior mode. What they do not look at is reasons why. So, yes, recidivism studies are mere factoids.

Now perhaps we read different newspapers. Since my first recollection of the issue, sometime in my teens, the one constant regarding the debate of public release of convict addreses, such as we're discussing here, is that entire communities have risen up to agitate the situation. Demonstrators, provocateurs, assailants ... and all of these are the "good" people. There is a Hap Kliban cartoon entitled "For Years, God Made Carl Wear a Lime Popsicle Around His Neck." It is simply that ... a picture of a man with a lime popsicle around his neck. If that's all there was to it, then fine. But the people in the communities I live in are just itching for the chance to beat a man with his own lime popsicle.

I've seen the gamut of knee-jerk laws around my corner of the US which were dedicated to protecting children. Remember the couple in Florida that got evicted from their apartment back about '92 for "indecent exposure"? Sure, they were having sex in a bathtub, but the little boy whose innocence was so offended actually had to stack lawn furniture in order to peer into their windows. Some of the laws you're referring to would follow these two adults for the rest of their lives. After all, they're sex offenders.

And as far as the Thought Police argument goes ... I expect parents to want violence in certain cases. However, I'm not going to arrest them for considering a violent crime in the manner that you would have the offenders arrested.

And something I've been trying to avoid here .... American society, for all of its excesses, is schizophrenically Puritan when it comes to sexuality. Destigmatize sexuality a little, and some of the pressures that push bent psyches over the edge disappear, too. Can you imagine being afraid that God is going to kill you every time your twelve year-old body decides to have an erection? Can you imagine being told you're wicked and sinful every time you try to figure out what your body is doing to you? I can't say, in the end, what causes this person or that to become a child molester. But I can say that the unresolved issues pointed to by the psychologists who feed the police the data regarding recidivism indicate that most child molesters are acting on issues surrounding their parents and their own sexuality. I wish I could say that if we destigmatize sex we get rid of molesters, but it's not true. But I can't recall any community ever really having the patience to try.

Do factors like poverty, racial discrimination, or family status have any bearing, say, on armed robbery? Seems to be. Now: Do any factors contribute to pedophilia? What are they? My own readings seem to point toward weird, fluffy psychobabble: Oedipus complex, latent homosexuality, absent father ... whatever. I can't say they're right, but I'm sick and tired of nobody really trying. Rather, it's fine if nobody wants to figure this out, but in the meantime, I'm left shaking my head when people ask, "Why did this happen?" Address these issues, somehow. We know that education and economy reduce certain types of violent crime. What things can we examine to reduce the number of molesters? We could just scare the hell out of children; in this case, telling them about the Demons and Devils is a good idea; but wouldn't it be better if the Demons and Devils never showed up in the first place? Or, more realistically, if there were only about a tenth or a hundredth?

You're right, we do choose our priorities. I would set a thousand murderers free in order to avoid accidentally putting an innocent man to death. Justice might be errant, but I'd rather it err toward the merciful or patient. It's not a far cry from your brand of vigilante to violent anarchy.

I'm sorry if Justice has disappointed you. However, I cannot support a form of Justice based on vengeance. If the "good" people really were capable of warning their children and leaving it as such, then yes, I could support the idea of annunciation as such. But it's not so much a trend toward inappropriate responses by the community that dismays me. Rather, I'm waiting for an exception to the rule ... I'm waiting for a community to go ahead and release these names, and then conduct itself appropriately. It'll be a while before that happens.

Simply put: Crime, arrest, investigation, trial, conviction, sentence. Sentence up? Go home. At that point the law treats the convict the same as it treats you. What you take from him, you take from yourself. Period.

Tiassa

PS--You're the one who's apparently disturbed about the current laws. What the heck is your excuse?

Boris ...

Thanx for the link. Any further comment I make might get me in trouble. :)

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Oh, yeah, Boris. It also mentions that the registry which tiassa wants parents to spend "exhausting" time on and which she wants parents to rely on is inaccurate and can be misleading due to the limited information which it provides. What a boost! I believe it also mentions that most people would probably handle accurate and complete information in a restrained manner. While you're at it, Boris, why don't you pull up a horror story about a sexually abused child and what it has done to their life? And another about a repeat offender who was let out without restrictions and ended up perpetrating a living hell upon multiple children because his/her identity and whereabouts were not adequately disclosed?

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 04, 1999).]

To paraphrase Tiassa, it's better to let a thousand murderers go free, than to hang an innocent man. Horror stories or not.

And the example I provided was precisely that of an innocent man getting "hung".

Besides, what are you so vehement about? If you truly believe in Christianity, then surely you believe in forgiveness. And you should also believe that God, not an angry mob, is the ultimate administrator of justice. Which makes me wonder at your talk of vengeance (isn't that supposed to be a cardinal sin?)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

tiassa- Whether or not you were raped makes for all the credibility in the world. It tells me that you know of what you speak.

Do I feel better after my tirade? I will never feel better as long as any living thing suffers the horrors of rape and worse without due recourse. It's bad enough that it happens, but when a rapist goes scot free, his or her victims continue to live in a prison not of their own making. If you think someone can just "get over" being raped, I recommend trying it out for yourself.

My views on the treatment of sex offenders are extreme. If you're waiting for an apology for that viewpoint, don't hold your breath. At no point do I suggest that one crime justifies another, but if the sex offender can be forgiven, so can his or her killer.

If they served their time in prison, well, what's a few years to the lifetime of hell the victim suffers? Let's say I got whacked on drugs and blew your (hypothetical} newborn's head off. I do three years because I had an abusive father. Your baby is dead. Do you call that a fair trade?

Ambrose Bierce tells us that there are four kinds of homicide. Look them up. The murder of a sex offender qualifies as the fourth kind: praiseworthy.

Oxygen--

OK ... Now, does my not having been raped only affect my credibility because I disagree with you, or should all of us lucky ones just shut the hell up for you, regardless of what we think?

You know, a guy I know was shot. He was 18. The kid who shot him was 17. The shooter remembers that he was showing off his guns; he remembers that the gun was loaded; he remembers pointing the gun--they all were laughing. And he doesn't remember pulling the trigger. He was six days shy of his 18th birthday. His sentence was the Boys' School for eighteen months and restitution totalling $1137.49 Fair trade? If its the best Justice can give ... but human life in Oregon is worth less than insurance for a new Chevy.

Since you've brought other criminals into it, I might mention that very little of American Justice satisfies the population's bent for vengeance. Mind you, any country where a joint and a Tylox get you 25 years while pimps pushing 14 year-olds gets turned around in 24 hours due to lack of bedspace is really asking for an inadequate sense of Justice served.

Regardless, even if we locked child molesters up for life, which idea has its merits, we still have to find a way to reduce the number of new predators. Period.

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited November 05, 1999).]

Boris and tiassa,

Not once have I suggested vengeance or violence against this child-predator. Yet, you both indicate that I have.

On separate ocassions, each of you has asked me a question along the lines of... did I consider your thought processes on certain matters to be twisted? In those ocassions, I did not. In this case you have both somehow stretched my belief, that the safety of children would be better served by the ability of parents to readily obtain full disclosure so that they can better inform their children about the danger of associating with a convicted sexual abuser of children in their community, into my being vengeful, violent an/or unforgiving. Sorry guys/gals... I do consider that twisted...

I do share your concern about hanging even one "innocent" person. I also have a concern about even one "innocent" child having their life ruined by a sexual abuser. As we all know, the latter happens much more often than the former. Tiassa's idealistic approach to try and cut down on the numbers of child-predators in the future seems very noble. However, that does not serve the interest of today's "innocent" children who need protection now and who could be better-served through the judicious use of information.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 05, 1999).]

truestory,

"judicious use of information". That's your sticking point. And you can't possibly be convinced that it's salient.

You simply cannot expect the entire public to make judicious use of information which is simply begging to be a pretext for a hate crime. It is similar to telling people, "thou shalt not kill, and oh by the way, there's Hitler standing on the corner over there", and then hoping they will make judicious use of that instruction. Your proposals are just as idealistic as Tiassa's.

Therefore, I do insist that public disclosure of compromising personal information is a gross violation of privacy as well as an invitation to active (and yes, bloody) persecution. It is tantamount to vengeance, and excessive punishment -- no matter what golden wrappings you try to apply to this issue. If you arm a murderer, and turn around so as not to watch the murder, you are still an accomplice. The kind of public information service you propose is tantamount to arming murderers.

If certain sex offenders are indeed not capable of rehabilitation, they must simply be locked up for life. Be it in prison, a mental institution, or a special guarded community especially for them. But, they should <u>NOT</u> be let out amidst the public, with a big glowing neon target pinned to their back.

On the other hand, if certain sex offenders are indeed judged to be rehabilitated (and especially if their "crime" was something ridiculous like public exposure in their own bathtub) -- they must be treated just as any other criminal who served their time.

Either way, the sex offender "registries" are <u>WRONG</u> -- on <u>every</u> moral ground.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 05, 1999).]

That you disagree with me is irrelevant. I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it. My vehemence on the situation stems from the way you come off sounding, which I and others interpret as "Okay, so you got raped. The guy did his time, get over it."

I hear a lot of talk about justice and the due process of law. Unfortunately, the law sometimes has very little to do with justice. Case in point: your remark about Oregon.

How do we prevent predators? That's a toughie. I'd rather not wait until they strike before we rip their genitalia off, etc. But how do you act on a crime before it happens? Rape is a crime of anger. It's usually anger against women, although men do get raped, too (and not only men are rapists). Unfortunately, there is no solution yet that doesn't walk all over everybody's rights, victim and criminal alike. If we want to take the moral high-ground, yet still deliver a punishment that lasts as long as the victim's torment, I'd vote for castration, chemical or otherwise. It should be as permanent as the victim's wounds.

Oxygen:

Do your extreme views apply to RAPISTS or to SEX OFFENDERS? Because according to the legal language in the US, "sex offender" is anyone convicted of ANY felony having something to do with sex. That includes:

Rape
Sex with a minor (no matter how large or small age difference is)
Prostitution (curiously, not pimping)
Soliciting a prostitute
Making, selling, or buying child pornography
Indecent exposure
Oral/anal sex between concenting adults (in about half the states)
Homosexual intercourse (likewise)
etc.

Lest you think it is all theoretical, early this year an 18-year old in Massachusetts was tried and convicted of statutory rape for having sex with a 17-year old he subsequently married. This "sex offender" is now registered for life. Do you suggest him castrated as well?

When I was in the military, my boyfriend and I sometimes screwed in the middle of an airfield wearing our uniforms - a violation of UCMJ. Technically, we are both "sex offenders" (or would be if we got caught). What exactly punishment do you have in mind for us?

FYI, I do favor castration (chemical or otherwise) for rapists. Child molesters judged incorridgible by a competent psychiatrist should belocked away permanently like any other dangerous mentally ill person. I also think that the whole concept of "sex offender", at least the way it is used in the US, is absurdly inclusive and should be dropped from legal use.

I think there's degrees and degrees of offenders that's kind of being glossed over here.

No, people like the couple in the bathtub, the 18 yr old & 17 yr old couple, etc. should not have their photograph tacked up in every neighborhood they move into. But I think a person that is preying on unsuspecting children should.

I think the difference here is consentual vs. non-consentual sex. If 2 people are having sex - that's not a crime in my book, no matter their age, sex, or sexual position. If somone is victimizing another person, THAT's the crime, and that's the big problem.

In that situation, I think we are having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Is it invading the predator's privacy? Yes! It is. But is that worse than allowing him/her to live in a community without any kind of warning to his/her neighbors? Tough call. I would have to say it depends on the degree of the offence, and whether or not it's likely they will become a repeat offender.

If it's just some guy flashing people, well, big deal - that can be lived with. Sure, it's not pleasant, you don't want your kid seeing that, but it's probably not going to scar them for life. But if it's some real sicko that repeatedly captures little girls and horribly molests them, well, I think he's forgone his privileges as an equal in the community and the people around him deserve to know who he is, and what he's done so they can step up their cautions to their children. Fact of the matter is that our justice system is flawed, very flawed, and people do have an obligation to watch their own backs.

I think the difference here is consentual vs. non-consentual sex. If 2 people are having sex - that's not a crime in my book, no matter their age...

Umm, that's a bit excessive. I am sure the 13-year old boy seduced by his teacher Mary Kay Letourneau "consented" most enthusiastically. Knowing what 13-year ld boys are like, I'd be astonished if she needed more persuasion than "Kiss me right here!". She also messed up his life quite thoroughly, in ways his hormon-flooded brain simply would not think of. The fact that he "consented" to screw her again AFTER she saddled him (his parents, actually) with a baby speaks volumes about teenagers' capacity for rational thought. Permanently removing her from the contact with children is the least she deserved.

Someone once told me that if upon reaching the legal majority (18), this boy decides he wants to marry Letourneau, she should be let out of prison and allowed to marry him. My immediate reaction was "if by then he still wants to spend his life with her, he is even more stupid than he seems", but then I remembered what 18-year olds, boys AND girls, are like. No, she should definitely serve out her sentence. By the time she is free he'll be 22 and taking care of their two children. Maybe that will bring him to his senses.

Letticia -

Good point, and I agree - I misspoke myself.

I meant to refer to mature people, not adults conning children into thinking it's consentual.

Some history...

http://www.concentric.net/~roljers/Sexaffend.html


http://www.news-observer.com/daily/1997/05/22/nc05.html

http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/sor/

http://www.star.net/People/~danvrspd/sexnews1.htm


http://sex-offender.vsp.state.va.us/Static/Background.htm

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 05, 1999).]

Some information:
http://games.go.com/WebDir/Government_and_politics/Political_issues/Crime/Sex_crimes/Sex_offender_registration

Hey, isn't honesty ALWAYS the best policy? I think so, regardless of the consequences. If the offender has been through the system, there is no double jeopardy, so it's not like they are really being persecuted for the same crime twice. Neighbors have a responsibility to be forgiving, but not stupid and careless. I mean really, how many people are REFORMED in the justice system? Many end up coming out of it worse criminals than they went in. Sure it should be public knowledge. Wouldn't you care to know if someone who had been prosecuted for child rape was living next door to you if you had a child playing in your back yard? This would not give anyone the right to judge, or to harass, but just to be cautious. The problem with this scenario is the lack of forgiveness and support. Maybe if this former criminal were accepted, and people tried to reach out to him/her, they may find love and acceptance that they never had before, and their hearts would change, so that they were no longer the dangerous person they once were. Optimistic, I know, but that's the way it's supposed to work. If this offender is humiliated and persecuted and harrassed by neighbors and the public in general, then what would be their motive to change or reform? It seems that they would end up even worse off. So, in summary, I would say let the people know the truth, but the truth is a big responsibility to handle. What the people do with that truth is what matters. They can react sensibly, or they can go on a witch hunt.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Yesss!!! And I hereby nominate tiassa and Boris as co-chairs of the "Sexual Predator Welcoming to the Neighborhood Committee" :)

But, seriously, Lori - 'tis true, what you have said here...

I thought I would cite a Nov. 4, 1999 "Seattle Post-Intelligencer" article entitled "Oregonians push for law to keep child rapists away from schools".

Such is the title.

Quote: "The initiative by two Portland-area attorneys, including former state Rep. Bob Tiernan, also calls for officials to notify residents at least 180 days vefore placing violent offenders--murderers, rapists and arsonists--in their neighborhoods and to write an impact study detailing an offender's criminal record and outlining a neighborhood safety plan."

I'll tell you what I like about this initiative:

* It is going before the voting community directly, not through exploitative legislators.

* Said community--specifically, that in which the initiative's writers live--in the past, struck a bargain with a sex offender convict--and this one I can appreciate. Realizing that they did not want this man in their community, and realizing that he would be a threat anywhere, they opted to take collection and send him away to college on the grounds he never return to the community. It seems they've given this one some thought, for once.

* It would amend the Oregon constitution, something Oregon voters love to do. This would clear Oregon state courts from the judicial review process.

* After passage by the people, the final draft of the law will see a Supreme Court test case almost immediately. If it passes Constitutional muster there, I can in no way oppose this.

Now, what's wrong with it? Simply put, it includes arsonists and armed robbers. That's the central problem. Certainly, the supporters can push the sex offenders part of it, tell the voters that to vote against the initiative is to vote against children. But here we are, with a new aspect to consider in this forum.

We've heard why people think your sentence shouldn't end when it's over if you're a child molester. What about the rest of it?

Incidentally, I'm curious what people think about 180 days notice? Do you think we'll see an increase in gun sales around the community? How will that impact this already ugly subject?

--Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Leticia-My cannons are aimed at rapists. You're correct about the definition of "sex offender", and I should have defined that early on in my barrage. The couple in the bathtub should have sued the kid's parents for invasion of privacy, but I'm no lawyer. As for prostitution, I see no reason why it should be illegal. As long as it's between consenting adults, who's it hurting? Should any marital problems arise because of it, that's what marriage coundelors are for, and this thing they call "statutory rape" really needs another name. Exhibitionists are a chapter unto themselves. It's the shocked reaction they're turned on by, not the prospect of sex. Homosexuals? Hey, to each his or her own. The states have no right to regulate that as long as both parties are adults. Oral or anal sex is a matter of personal preference. Child pornography sellers should be locked away. The people who make child pornography (knowingly) should be shot. The people who buy child pornography (knowingly) should be shot right along with them. Sex in public? I know the old arguments; it's as natural as farting, it's a beautiful thing, etc. I'm no puritan, but get a room. If you have to do it where people can see you, there are theaters where you can paid for it (and quite nicely, too). Maybe it's the excitement of the possibility of getting caught that turns you on, in which case I say be prepared to pay the piper if you do. But if you haven't been hauled up on it yet, either no one can see you (and therefore no one is offended), or those who can are enjoying the show (and therefore no one is offended). At any rate, no one is being hurt by your actions. No harm, no foul.

I suppose what it all comes down to is capacity for empathy. While a lot of people on this board seem capable of sympathizing with the victims, it seems many of us have real trouble seeing the world from a criminal's perspective.

Imagine that half a lifetime time ago, you went and did a really stupid and cruel thing. And now, you are paying for it. Day in, and day out. For the rest of your life. How do you think this would reflect on your behavior, your goals, and your future? Do you have the superhuman restraint and infinite patience to absorb the endless days, weeks, months, years, and decades of public lynching, or will it eventually drive you so far up the wall that you end up committing mass murder?

I am not arguing for releasing pathological criminals into unsuspecting communities. But in my opinion, even outright execution is a more merciful punishment than a scarlet letter. All I'm saying is that the "offender registry" programs are inhumane -- and if you are trying to protect communities from ex-cons, then you should look for other methods. It's sad that so many of us are so pigheaded and inflexible when it comes to finding a means to an end.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Wow, Boris. So, it's more humane to kill someone than to let the public know of thier past crimes? Damn, now THAT'S harsh. You're one mean s.o.b.

[This message has been edited by JMitch (edited November 06, 1999).]

I think maybe the main decisive factor should be the likelyhood of repeat crimes. Perhaps they should put a time limit on the notifications? Say, after a certain length of time, (depending on the severity of the crime), if there's been no repetition of the crime the offender could just be on the list, instead of having their community notified. Like a probation period! This way, the folks that just made a single mistake wouldn't have to keep paying over and over again, while the true predators would hopefully be at least slowed down. And wouldn't it be easier for a child to come forward about an attack if the attacker was known to be a criminal? I mean for the child - it might help reassure the poor kid that it's not their fault, they did nothing wrong, etc, that the problem lies in the attacker.

The other side of this is of course for the victims - how long do they have to keep suffering for the crime? If a guy rapes & murders someone, how long does that victim's family suffer and pay? Is it fair that after 10 years or even after 20 or 30 years the criminal gets to go back to a regular life, while his victim's parents, siblings, spouse and children get to suffer nightmares and are frightened of strangers for the rest of their lives?

It's a hard question, I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I do have a 'problem' like this in my family, so I know firsthand how much damage this kind of thing causes. In our case, the perpetrator got off scott free - he lived to a ripe old age and died without ever facing up to the damage he has done. The victims in the family are still damaged people. Most are in abusive or failed marriages, either as the victim or as the abuser. One had his son taken away from him because of this - that son is now beating and abusing his own girlfriend. The damage done by one man has trickled down through the generations. Perhaps this case isn't really relavant, for some reason nobody ever had him arrested, so we don't know how much healing could have occured if he had been locked up and prosecuted. But I know he preyed on other children in the neighborhood, and that probably wouldn't have happened if there had been signs posted or neighbors notified. In his case, he was a sick predator, and had no control, nor any wish to have control over his 'urges', and he deserved to be reviled and feared. It's really too bad nobody in my family had the guts to stand up for themselves, but I can see how a child that's been molested and beaten since before they can remember would have a hard time facing authorities. And of course he was a sneaky bastard, so most of the adults had no knowledge of it. (Or so they say.)

Truestory:

I checked out your links (Nov. 5 post).

Okay I'll keep it short. I won't pick any issues for the 404 at star.net.

Otherwise I saw a couple of registries, a registry history, and a newspaper article.

I have three responses:

* A "Child Sex Offender" list would have listed half the boys in my junior high. Extending the numbers to cover ages 15-18 would include the greater portion of my high school male classmates.

* The News & Observer article nicely covered the argument of whether sex offenders should be let out of prison at all. Nice Band-Aid, but will it cure the cancer?

* What does it say when the Maryland online registry contains a warning against vigilantes? Isn't that as hollow as a cigarette-pack warning? Or perhaps a Rated-R restriction notice? I thought it was interesting, though, that the Virginia registry listed misuse of the information as a Class 1 misdemeanor. Now, is that an additional charge? Or does the brick in the head or the four masked guys with bats or whatever ... is that a misdemeanor, or a felony as well as the misdemeanor?

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

truestory -
Consider this; an innocent man is convicted of a sex crime. After serving time in prison, he is released to try to reform some semblance of a life. However, with his name broadcast and distributed wherever he tries to go, he is incapable of finding a place to live out his days in peace. How would YOU react if your entire town not only hated you, but knew where you lived, and had some idea of what you deserved? How long would it be before somebody like Oxygen would meet you in a restroom and inflict their version of justice upon you?

Consider also those who were truly rehabilited, or those who have grown out of the stage in which they were a danger to society. One point of view is "you screwed up, so tough rocks, bub". I rather think this is a coward's way out. The problem with these people may or may not be fixable. Your choice is whether or not to TRY to fix it. If you don't try, you certainly won't succeed.

Lastly, consider those who actually did it, and are likely to do so again. My opinion on these sorts is to simply leave them in their cells as long as it takes, until they become harmless, or death takes them. Of course, some would still slip through the cracks in this system.

What needs to be decided is whether the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one. A few cracked eggs, eh? I can't accept that. Sacrificing a few to make the rest of us feel safer is not justice, it is persecution.

Another thing to think about is whether this will actually deter such crimes. I'm certain that it will in some cases, as with any percieved increase in punishment. However, it will not deter all. Suppose a sex offender moves to a town after being released from prison. The town, under this plan, is notified, and that person is suddenly under a great deal of scrutiny, and pressure to leave. Suppose that he does it again anyway. What now? If the system didn't work, it obviously needs changing.. should we throw it out in favor of a new scheme? Or should we try to increase the effectiveness of the current one? Maybe such offenders should be forced to distiguish themselves from "normal" peope somehow? A yellow star sewn into their shirt, perhaps...

How do you know where to stop in removing these people's rights? How is your judgement better than mine?

Oxygen -

Frankly, you disgust me. If you inflicted such torture on some one, regardless of your flimsy rationalization, you would be no better than those you target. Mankind is capable of far more mature and humane retribution than your brutal 'eye for an eye' mentality. If you impart upon an offender an act of cruelty equaling their own, how are you telling them that it is wrong to do so?

FyreStar

"Anger is a wind which blows out the lamp of the mind." - Robert Ingersoll

What would YOU suggest we do? Let's assume the perp has sexually assaulted a four-year old child and left him or her to die in a pile of garbage at the side of the road.

You assume that I'm Batman or something, that I don a patriotic leotard and go out hunting for these bastards in my Oxygenmobile. (Action figures available at all Toys 'R' Us stores now! Complete with Divine Retribution Action Grip and Holy Hellfire Rocket Propelled Homosexual Horse Launcher).

When I feel anger, I feel it in its' entirety. I do not deny my emotions. I vent them full-force, but I never just act on them. This subject happens to be one of my buttons. An opinion was asked for, and I gave one that illustrated my feelings.

I now see things from Lori's point of view. God is her button, rapists are mine.

I don't know if any sex offenders of any sort live in my neighborhood. Given the nature of this part of town, it wouldn't surprise me. If this knowledge came to me from a reliable source (not back-fence gossip), I would make every attempt to move. Alas, the economy here would make that a difficult process, but I would not feel very at ease until I got into a decent neighborhood without such denizens.

This is my response for the real world, void of emotion and speaking from my restrained half:

A community has a right to know of any danger, real or potential, present in its midst. A community has the right to protect itself against these dangers. As far as the perp goes, he or she should have thought about that. "Heat of the moment" just doesn't fly in my book. You can think it all you want, but if you decide to do it, be prepared to pay the consequences.

I only take this path in the real world because it is illegal to shoot them.

Oxygen -

What would I do? Assuming there was proof, of course, I'd lock the bastard up, or commit him to a hospital, depending on the circumstances. How long? As long as possible according to the law.

Its rather obvious that you feel all of your anger. I do as well, but I do not allow it to influence my judgement. Committing a crime out of revenge is just as bad as for another reason.

The real question you need to ask yourself is what you would do if shooting the person WAS legal. Going by what you have said, I would guess that you'd grab a revolver and murder the person, rationalizing that he deserved it. The purpose of laws is not to dictate ethics.

Another question I would like to pose, is this; What is it that sets sex crimes apart? Why is it more anger provoking than assault, arson, or murder?

FyreStar

FyreStar--

"Another question I would like to pose, is this; What is it that sets sex crimes apart? Why is it more anger provoking than assault, arson, or murder?" (FyreStar to Oxygen, 11/16)

An excellent question ... unfortunately I have no set answer. So if I might stick my nose in here with a few considerations.

The United States, a couple of decades back, went through a period of prohibition against capital punishment. Before that, however:

* In 1935 in Alabama, rape was a capital crime
* In 1850 in Kansas, a cow was hanged for sorcery
* We have always been able to kill someone deemed treasonous, respecting due process.

I think, in the case of Alabama rapes, there was a fundamental revulsion to the crime. For a period, I held the personal belief that rape should be a capital crime, so long as murder is. With murder, the suffering is secondary ... the victim is dead and probably doesn't care; the vengeance is for the living. The sentiment here is that a rape survivor must continue in the psychological nightmare-world such a crime creates. Thus the effect of the crime is longer-lasting than the moment of bullet- or icepick-impact, or whatever the killing blow is.

I think that sex crimes take on an almost religious significance. Were it simple knowledge or even simple logic that formed the core of our sexual psychologies, it would be much easier to manage the aftereffects of a rape. However, one of the most devastating lines I've ever heard was my high-school girlfriend apologizing that she couldn't be a virgin for me. Okay, I see that's a heavy burden. I even felt it, then. But retrospect tells me that the artificial value we place on virginity was a motivating factor in her guilt.

And this device--this sense of burden assigned by artificial social standards--obstructs much of the recovery process for any crime victim. Do you get nervous and make pro-minority statements when standing at a bus stop to appease a person of different heritage? Seems sitcom stupid, to me. Do you pussy-foot about and coddle people who are already back from long illness and trying to start normal life again? Seems counterproductive. What about someone recovering from a sex crime? They see and hear when friends bite their tongue out of alleged sensitivity. They feel guilt watching their world react in such a frightened manner, and a terrible frustration at the perception that they are somehow not still the same person. All of this builds up on rape survivors. Or, so I've heard (that disclaimer's for you, Oxygen!)

The problem seems to be, then, that the emotional burdens of sex crimes outweighs, say, the emotional burden of some punk stealing and smashing your car. And here is the nearest thing I can figure about why we react the way we do to sex crimes. And what, with a parade of mothers and fathers and sisters through courtrooms and across television shows spilling their interpretations of grief ... that's why they argue so much about punishment, and not about why the crimes happen.

Of course, that's all the nearest I can figure.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited November 16, 1999).]

Tiassa:

You are saying that the impact of rape is defined by the society, and not by the act itself. In effect, society continues to punish the victim after the fact, even through well-meaning "sympathy".

Does that mean that in the absence of such societal burden rape is no worse than any other physical assault, such as beating someone bloody with a club? Physical damage is about the same. Now, I don't know if there ever was a society which truly placed no psycological burden on the victim at all, but I do know that until 20th Century very few women had a say in whom they were to marry. In a sense, almost all sex was rape, and some feminists claim it WAS, literally.

But if a woman is raised to accept the fact that something is as basic as marriage is out of her hands, that she belongs to whoever pays her father most goats, doesn't that take a sting out of rape? When I was a kid, I read "Thousand and One Nights". In some stories a rascally hero would sneak into a sultan's harem and have his way with sultan's wives. At the time (I may have been 12 or so) I wondered "Didn't the wives have anything to say about it?". The answer, of course, they did not. One man bought them, and another stole what was not his, but to the woman involved, there was little difference. (Of course, every hero of "1001 Nights" was a handsome and wonderful lover, but let's talk about reality.) Assuming the thief neither beat them, nor was a lover out of legend, did sultan's wives have nightmares for the rest of their lives? Or was it a case of "One cock as good as another, and please Allah don't let the guard wake up"?

Letticia--

It's a dangerous area to tread, eh? I cannot define what happens for a victim during that moment of the crime itself. However, we can assess what damage the survivor allows us to know. Consider:

* You walk into a room where several of your friends are eating lunch. They're discussing a movie that you, also saw. But, because they know you were raped, the discussion about this dark, violent movie comes crashing to a halt and a whole table of people are trying pointedly to not look at you. Day after day after day after day after day .....

That's more of what I'm getting after. Certes there are those wounds attached to the crime itself: Bang! you're a statistic flouted every two weeks on the news ... and the news is never good. Boom ... there goes an inherent sense of social trust and human security that you may never recover. And such are the wounds of various crimes. So, yes, sex crimes do carry a similar impact as other, less intimate crimes.

Many of the medical risks of rape are present in other crimes. Even a homeless junkie presents a greater threat of accidentally causing your death than many rapists do by intention.

It's hard to reconcile any of it. But when we add social prohibitions and stigma to the formula, it becomes flat-out dangerous. Of the example I offered ... she was tearfully sorry she couldn't give me her virginity; she thought of herself as a slut because she knew what semen tasted like when she was eight; she felt guilty that she had to prosecute a family member; she felt guilty that anybody ever found out (after all, it wasn't nice to badmouth your parents in her household). Among the reasons for acquittal was that she apparently did not fight back hard enough--nobody heard an eight-year old scream. And every day she looked out at the people who walked as closely as they could through this fire with her and felt horribly; telling people to go away, that she'd dragged them too far down this nightmare-road.

Physical and social boundaries were, by comparison, easy to redraw. But the biggest challenge to recovery came from shucking those stupid social stigmas that just burned at her heart.

Does any of this make sense?

* * * * *

A couple of quick points/responses/comments:

* rape/arranged marriage: I personally feel that all marriage constitutes the grounds for rape. Britain decided, in the nineties, that a wife was not her husband's property.

* On that same notion, regarding arranged marriage ... it is not an excuse if one person claims not to have known better. But what of an entire culture? And how do they realize the "wrongness" of such a custom? And what constitutes the "rightness" that they perceived?

* views of rape: At the University of Oregon, I took a human sexuality class that included anthropological and zoological perspectives. Among the material we were subjected to was a study in which the feminist author cited felines, waterfowl, and insects as all committing rape.

And these last points have no direct, intended relevance. They were a couple of the first things to mind while reading your post. The effect of these ideas might play significantly in my philosophical development, but by and large they are incomplete ideas.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Does this mean I don't get to market my action figure? I already designed the Oxygen Fortress of Vituperative Vehemence, with a stable for three horses... ;)

On the subject of shooting the guilty (not the presumed guilty, but the actually guilty), I would think that this would be a federal position not too unlike the people who throw the switches for the various forms of capital punishment we have today. I wouldn't just hunt them down because I might get the wrong guy or gal. I'd want to be sure beyond a doubt. That vicious streak in me would have the soon-to-be-out-of-our-way shot by the winner of a lottery of sorts. Sales of the tickets could go to programs that help the victims.

By the way, if anybody thinks I'm way out of line with my sentiments, try giving "A Modest Proposal" a read. I don't remember who wrote it, Bacon, I think, but you should be able to find it from the title. It's a hoot!

tiassa -

You are correct about the increased psychological burden left to the victim, not only by the attacker, but also the society. It is a violation of the most intimate and protected part of the physical body, which is why victims feel much less secure afterwards. However, it seems that in designing penalties, people often place vengeance as the primary means for their decision. Certainly, they have right to feel angry, but do they have the right sentence the offender to death? Or to continue to punish the offender after their official punishment has been carried out? That is part of the grounds for my disagreement with Oxygen.

I've noticed that the public's awareness and response to sex crimes has increased as the public focus on sex itself has increased. Do you think this is something akin to a fad, that will settle itself out in time, to a more "normal" level? (in either case)

In addition to what you were saying about the victim not being able to get past the crime due to people's reactions to them - Another similar problem is the enormous amount of sex-related media out there. If they watch TV, Movies, read newpapers, magazines, books, etc., they are constantly exposed to reminders of the crime. On one hand, this could make them feel worse, but on the other, it may help desensitize them to the pain caused by the reminders.

I still don't understand why the crusading goes on for rape above all else; the greater emotional impact certainly has something to do with it, but there are often times when it is a friend, family member, or random do-gooder forwarding the cause. In such cases, I wonder if they would still be doing so if the victim was murdered instead. I can't picture a father standing over the corpse of his daughter and saying "Well, at least she wasn't raped" and then retiring to his recliner and remote control.

Further thoughts?

FyreStar

Hello FyreStar,

Believe it or not, I have heard families of female murder victims who were at least slightly comforted when they found out that there was no evidence of sexual assault. To them, this meant that their daughter, sister, mother, aunt, grandmother, niece would not be subject to the sick scrutiny of others who would tend to think that she was somehow "responsible" for what happened to her.

Sexual crimes against women (even when they ultimately end in murder) sometimes add an unpleasant aspect to the thought processes of some who "analyze" the crime... Have you ever heard something along the lines of, "Oh, well, she must have asked for it" when a sexual crime is perpetrated against a woman? I have. Putting a female victim on trial for a sexual crime which was committed against her will is, unfortunately, a common occurrence in American society.

The mere fact that a "woman" is the victim of a sexual crime sometimes causes certain people to believe that she was somehow responsible for the attack by virtue of her feminine gender.

Sick, but it happens.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 30, 1999).]

FyreStar....

It's all the burden of the sacrifices we choose. Does that make any sense? We choose our justice to look like this ... sometimes it's inadequate, but what can you do? We choose to raise children in a psychotic world, expecting them to be "normal" ... (when the "deviant" people become the majority, can we give all the happy, "normal" people downers? sorry, irrelevant).

We choose with our sins. I've seen good, intelligent people derailed by marital spats... geniuses gone to waste because of petty sexual jealousy. Start with the fights couples have over, say, a husband's straying eye. Or better yet ... a girlfriend once yelled at me because another woman whom I'd never met looked at me with demonstrative appreciation--y'know, drunk people checking each other out.

If that kind of pettiness is as standard as it seems ... if the "Jerry Springer" psychology is truly that powerful in American culture, what chance do kids have? 1 in 4 women you know will be raped during your lifetime. Bang! Technically, I should be at my quota but something tells me the statistic's on the low side. With only the negatives as the focus, what will growing minds foster? All abstract ramblings ... apologies if nothing makes sense.

I think public awareness of sex crimes is like E. coli. The media has changed the way they approach previously sensitive material. We hear about it more now because we've found the ultimate ratings gig: it's sex, but you're supposed to be morally offended and therefore self-superior while gorging yourself with it. "Puritain pornography", I've heard it called, but that was on NPR.

I'm not sure this is helping anything ... thanx for putting up with it.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

I think American culture is very confused in regards to sex and violence.

I have actually spoken to a few mothers who have said (in all seriousness) that they allow their children to watch all the violence they want on TV and in movies, but if sex is brought up they will change the channel or leave the theater. Can you believe that!? No wonder people are so messed up!

Parents are too uncomfortable with their own sexuality to discuss it rationally with their children. They end up saying stupid things like "just say no", and "sex is for marriage", when it is very obvious that you just can't say that to a 15 year old that has so many hormones running through their blood! You got to start educating your kids about sex BEFORE puberty. That gives the kid a chance to make up their MIND before their body does it for them. And they'll be much more likely to stick to a decision or resolution of their own than to obey a rule handed down by a parent.

I don't know any percentages off hand, but do you guys know how many 14 and 15 year olds (boys AND girls) that are having sex nowadays? And what happens when a parent discovers their children are sexually active? Some parents are okay, of course, but I knew a lot of kids when I was growing up that were terrified of telling their parents they were having sex. One girl I knew was kicked out of her house because her father found out she had let a boy feel her up!! Is that a healthy attitude?? That same girl (who was 15 when she was kicked out) ended up homeless, living from friend to friend, boyfriend to boyfriend. She dropped out of school and I hear became a prostitute. Greeaaat. Her dad sure did her a favor! I'm sure there are similar stories for boys. How many sex offenders are coming from these uptight families? How many were "sexually strangled" as teens - told they would go to Hell or go blind for masturbating, for Pete's sake!

America needs to take a deep breath and stop panicking about sex. Sex is natural, sex is GOOD! Nobody should ever feel guilty or bad for indulging in a consentual sexual relationship - it's what keeps our species alive (literally!). I think if sex was more open, more accepted, it would decrease sex crimes hugely.

SkyeBlue,
again it seems we are vibrating on the same wavelength, you almost always manage to air my sentiments exactly, or pretty much.
Are you an air sign? or is it fire? d'you cry when you see a sad movie? do you ever choke up when listening to certain music? are you sometimes shocked by things a lot of people don't seem to care about? but sometimes you shock those same people with outrageously radical remarks? are you into hot 'n spicy food? am I psychic?

Man, everybody is trying to read my mind lately - Tab', Lady... Heh, heh, makes me feel loved. :)

'K, Tab, here's your answers:

I'm a Taurus - I haven't studied zodiac so I have no idea if that's fire or what. I am right on the cusp of Aries. Sad movies - I try to avoid them because the DO make me cry, which then makes me feel weak, and I hate that feeling. I've HAD to be tough for so long, it's hard to admit to weakness. I know that's the wrong attitude, and I'm working on that one.

Choke up with certain music? - you hit that one on the head. Music can move me like nothing else in the world. Next was... Oh, shocking people. Yah, I feel very out of step with the rest of the world a lot of the time. I am shocked by the casual cruelty I see every day, the hipocracy of my co-workers (I won't tolerate that in a friend but I can't control who I work with much), the blind sheep-like attitude of the general masses. At the same time, things come very naturally to me that other people have a huge problem with - my attitudes and practices and beliefs on sex and religion have got me into hot water lots of times before. (That's why I love this forum, nobody here whispers secrets about me, I don't feel so judged here). Hot 'N spicy food - BANG again, you betcha! If my eyes aren't watering and my nose isn't running, it's not hot enough!

Psychic, tab'? I sure hope so! Otherwise, you're someone I know in "real" life, I haven't been being very secretive. I should probably drop this screen name, it's too much like my real one. But I can trust you guys, right? ;)

I think the reason that rape has such an uncommon stigma attached to it is because people can't segregate the aspect of intimacy from the act. It's an act of violence, period. What's wrong is that it's supposed to be the exact opposite in intent and meaning, and for some reason people can't get over that.

I'm sorry Skyblue but I firmly disagree with you regarding your statement about children and sex. Let's think about what God gave us sex for, and then ask yourself why then would kids be doing it? Kids having kids. Oh, and don't tell me all about birth control. For crying out loud, can we possible fuck around (excuse the pun) with the very simple yet astoundingly wonderful gift that God gave us anymore than we have? Don't get me started. If a 15 year old wants to have sex (and we all know that they will soon if not already), then they should be able to get married and have it. The problem is that no one has the right priorities nowadays. It's all about making money. If you're not 28 with a college degree, a house in the burbs with a 2 1/2 car garage, and a day care lined up, it's considered a crime if you have a child nowadays. The father, by the way, should not have kicked his daughter out, but locked her up. Spare the rod and spoil the child ya know. When I look at sex in today's society it always does a great job of putting into perspective exactly how far away from God we all are. :(

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

Hi Lori!

I don't know what you mean when you are saying you disagree with my statement about children and sex. You think we shouldn't educate kids about sex?? Let me clarify what I'm trying to say...

I think it boils down to realism vs. idealism. Ideally, people shouldn't have sex until they are ready. Realistically, people have sex much earlier than that, right? (I don't want to argue with you about sex before vs. sex after marriage, because I can already tell that you and I probably hold opposite views on that one.)

What I am saying is that, realistically, kids ARE going to have sex. Period. So the best thing we can do is try to educate them before it becomes a hormonal decision, while they're still young enough that it is a mental decision. I dunno if I'm expressing that clearly, let me know if I'm being confusing. A sexually educated 15 year old is more likely to think to him/herself and say "I don't think I'm ready for this. I know there will be plenty of time for this later, when I am more mature". An uneducated 15 year old is more likely to think something like "What is this? I got to find out more about this secret! This is exiting, and it makes me feel good, why shouldn't I go ahead & experiment?? Besides, everyone else is doing it!"

I'm NOT equating educating children about sex with condoning children having sex. Does that mean we shouldn't learn about harmful things? I say no! Education is the best thing we can give to potential sexually active people (which is everyone). Waiting until they are hormonally & emotionally unbalanced (ie - every single 15 year old), then giving them messages that what they are feeling is somehow bad and wrong. It's not bad or wrong for a 15 year old to be sexually attracted to someone - it's just proof that their reproductive and hormonal systems are functional! You just have to hope that they are wise enough to know their limits to what they can handle, physically, socially, emotionally... Children need our support and wisdom, not condemnation and idealistic preachings.

Ultimately, once your child walks out that front door each morning, it is them and them alone who decides whether or not to have sex with that cute boy in 2nd period. Mom and Dad are the last thing on their mind, but their own self-interest is probably first or second. You just have to try to make them understand that wise decisions regarding sex IS in their own self-interest.

I gottcha, and yes I believe that people should not only wait til they're married to have sex, but also be willing to deal with the consequences. I don't believe in the use of birth control. Ironic since I've been such a slut, and on the pill for 15 years! Until recently. You're right in that the difference lies in idealism vs reality. It's really hard to make God's laws "fit" into our reality today, but it's certainly worth trying. By education, do you mean telling them to use condoms or??? I mean, I doubt if there's a 15 year old out there that doesn't realize where babies come from. I think that the best education regarding these issues is God's Word. You don't have sex til you're married, and you have sex knowing full well and expecting the consequence of having a baby. It's so important for kids to have a strong spiritual upbringing fostered by their parents. Lot's of parents not only are not saved in Christ, but don't talk about sex with their kids at all. As a matter of fact, the religious church-going folks may be the biggest culprits of this. Then maybe supplement this with one of those "fake" babies. Do you know what I'm talking about? I've seen them on talk shows; baby dolls that are computerized to act and respond JUST LIKE a real baby. The kids have to take care of them for a week or so, and by the time they give them back, they never want to even think about having sex for a long, long time. I just wish that when a kid did screw up and get pregnant, that they wouldn't be so scared and embarrassed, thinking that their life is ruined, and their parents will kick them out or hate them, or their church will condemn them, or that they're a failure or whatever, that they put their newborn in a dumpster after having it in secret or have an abortion. It's a real shame that parents and families aren't more supportive and less worried about what the neighbors think.

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

There we go, now we're talking on the same level. (What? Oh, well, you know what I mean)

I, as you might expect, disagree in regards to no premarital sex, no birth control, word of god being the best teacher.

Let me explore this a bit - let's assume for the sake of argument there is a God. OK, now let's figure out, if a woman got married at 15, she would have until, what, about 48 or so until she would be unable to have kids? Okay, say she never uses birth control at all, and ends up cranking out children at about one per year (assuming she's healthy enough to withstand it). No, lets say one every year and a half, just to be conservative. 48 years minus 15, thats 33 productive years. 1 child every 1.5 years, that's 22 children. Let's round that down to 20, nice and even. So, Lori, if my numbers are accurate, that means God wants each healthy woman to have 20 children??? Can you imagine the starvation and famine that would occur if this were the case? We would outgrow our environment massively, even more so than we are now.

Is it a sin to have sex while you're pregnant? You sure aren't going to have a child from the sex, so you shouldn't have it at all, right? Or if you've already had 5 kids and can't afford more, you should stop having sex altogether? Huh, you won't find me following a God that dictates that!! ;)

Here's my opinion - sex feels good for a reason! Out of the maybe 20 times a woman can get pregnant over her life time, she can have sex thousands and thousands of times. If there is a god, I'm convinced he would want us to be happy and to love our fellow man, and what better way to share and become close to another human being than to have sex? To me, the sin comes in abusing the gift - using it to manipulate someone, or to harm them.

Okay, I gotta run. Look forward to debating more later, Lori. :)

Okay, I'm back, and now I'm at home so I can reply at leisure. I am free'd from the chattering hypocrites that bray incessantly around my ears!!!

Okay, now where was I? Oh, yah.

Lori - in reply (still)... By education I mean talking to your youngsters (I'm thinking the 8 year old range, depending of course on the individual) about ALL the consequences and rewards of sex. You got to remember, though, that I have no problems with premarital sex, and I don't believe in your God. So, I of course would leave "God" out of the lectures and instead stress "responsibility".

I agree that 15 year olds know where babies come from. But you can know something, and then you can KNOW something. I have seen stuff on those 'robot' babies you're talking about, and I think they're great! Perfect for teaching about the consequences of pregnancy. BUT, thanks to modern science, pregnancy isn't always a consequence of sex, see?

If I were raising a child right now (by the way, do you have kids Lori? I don't, yet.), I would be EXTREMELY open with them. Children are clued in to a lot of things we don't think they are. I believe that honesty is the best policy. Now, I dont' mean I'd be inviting them to watch me & their dad having sex, so don't think that...

My husband and I have always said that we'd have a bowl of condoms right next to the front door for our kids (and their friends) to help themselves from. I would also try to include their friends in our open conversations about sex. (all of this assuming they are of age, I think around 14 to 15 or so). Why? Because I know kids are going to have sex. They just are. Not all of them, but a lot of them - if not my kid, then one of their friends. And if they're going to have sex, I'd rather them be safe and have a few possibly uncomfortable conversations than to get a call from a gynecologist telling me my kid has herpes or AIDS. And I'd rather reason with or argue with an upset parent about this whole thing than to have some other poor kid catch something science can't cure.

I would teach my child(ren) to be responsible for themselves. I would try to let them know that it's okay to experiment, within reason. I would try to explain to them that there are powerful hormones released during sex, and once you've had sex with someone, that relationship will never be the same. I would try to let them know that I was there for them, regardless of the question or problem, and that I wouldn't judge them or think they were a 'slut'. I would try to let them know that they ought to be careful of who the sleep with, because society will punish you if you're too promiscuous. Above all, I would try to make sure they understood what sex was all about, so perhaps they WOULDN'T be so eager to try it for themselves. While I don't see any harm in premarital sex, I don't think it's wise for immature people to engage in sex. It's too intense, and if you are an emotional mess (ie - everyone going through puberty), it really spells disaster.

Basically, my overall attitude towards sex is that it's natural!! Why be ashamed of it? What good can that possibly do? Will feeling terrible about giving in to a primal urge make you a better person? Will it do you ANY good in the future? Will it teach you anything besides that sex is bad, unless you're an adult (which seems like will never happen to a teen), and married? And what happens if they REALLLY enjoy the sex? How many dumbasses out there (again, we're talking about 15 year olds) have the reasoning structure to think something like "hmm, mom said sex was bad. Sure felt good to me! What ELSE has mom said was bad that might feel good?" (This is the same problem I have with the "War on Drugs", by the way. Create imaginary dangers about one drug - like pot - and you lose credibility about them all)

Okay, now I'm starting to run off at the mouth. (Keyboard??) Plus, damn AOL keeps logging me off. Plus, I had a crappy day at work, and I've been chugging a tumbler of miscellaneous liquor for about half an hour now, so I better stop before I forget how to type! :) (Yah, I know, drinking never solves anything.) Look foward to your reply, Lori. (and anyone else that cares to jump in!)