Sex offenders? Can we trust?

I have just got done watching Dr.phil and I must say this has always been in the back of my mind huanting me. Can we trust that our government in telling us that there is a sex offender in the area. I know that there's sites that let us look into if there's a sex offender in the neighborhood but they request that you pay them money for info that should allow you to search for free. I have a 7 year old nephew who has just lost his father and the last thing I need is to find out that there is an offender in the house across the street. And I'm pretty sure that most would agree! What do you all think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the main problem is with the issue of Predatory Paedophiles/sex offender, they are the class of sex offender that pose the main threat.

Whether a large percentage of these should be allowed back into a 'norm society' without surgical/hormonal punishment or therapy is debatable.

I can imagine scenario's where people find out someone they know is a sex offender a normal Joe (family guy), so they torch his house, lynch him, beat him, or vent mob vengence in any way. Then find out 20 years previously he humped someone who was 15, when he was 18 and pissed up.

I think that to have a list of predatory sex offenders is of more interest to public safety.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I personally think that any person convicted of sex offenses against children should be getting much more time in prisons. They should receive at least 25 years minimum to life or death wherever the case may call for it. That way people won't be finding to many sex offenders walking the streets for a very long time. As was stated chemical castration would also be a very good idea before letting them back into society. As for putting their names and whereabouts on TV or the internet should be done for free. There's a problem though in doing this. That is the person has done their time and has supposedly paid their dues for that crime so we are still punishing them even after they served their sentences. We don't know where murderers are staying or people who commit manslaughter, why not? Because they too have served their time and are free to go back into society and be free to do what they want, within the law, for the remainder of their lives.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i agree with cosmic they have served there time and so it should be none of your business what they do. Especially when you concider that on the "sex offenders regestry" are 4 teenages\young adults who were arested for protesting naked against something or other. Yep highly dangorous, lock up your kids

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree with all of you but it dose depend on what kind of offence they did. Like if it was on a child or if it was on like another adult. See i know someone who was ten years old and her own father had sexualy touched her he has convicted and was sent to jail. The courts also put a restraining order on him. But touching alittle kid is only jail time a pothetic restraining oder enough from keeping him away from little kids and how are we suppose to know if he'll do it again. Now he is a level 3 sex offender, and will never see the children again. To tell you the truth I think he needs to be in jail for an even longer period of time than he had served. As cosmic had already said. As my boyfriend heavyarms said to me earlier cosmic you hit the nail on the head with what you said!

 

I so far agree with everyone on this subject. The fact of the mater is what if you have a young child who comes to visit you, or lives with you and a sex offender of level three who live across the streetshould he be allowed to hide under the radar. I'm not sure if I'm making any sence so if I'm not tell me! But I can understand where Asguard is coming from becuase I've seen college kids doing there frat initiations and they dress up a guy in a dress a march himdown a street but later gets charged. And for some stupid reason they put him on sex offenders list but is he truely a threat? No it's just stupid kid crap you know!? But if it's a level three why should we just ignore the fact that he/she lives lives across the hall!? I'm not trying to controdict anyone becuase you all have a very valid point. But the proof is that most sexual preditors of level 2 or higher have done it to more than one person and more than once. Do you think if we increase the time to be served and threat with chemical castration and other forms of punishment as such is enough to lower the chance. Take for instance a rapest should only ten years with a chance of parole and not to forget being a good boy/girl will get them out even quicker. If you had a choice would you let them out knowing that they might do it again. Tell me cosmic, pinocchio you guys are smart and I'ld like to here what you would. Can we let them live life under the radar and have a chance to do it again or prosicute them to the fullest extent of the law and consider them for a life behind bar. Where they will more than likely learn what it's like to..............UUUUM! You know? Drop the soap!!!!

 

heavyarms:

There are 2 different issues here

The first is that two many things (including public indecency which are laws I'm against anyway) are put on sexual offender registries

The second has to do with what should the treatment\punishment for pedophiles and rapists

Now the basis of our legal system is that once someone has done there time in prison (with the rehab etc) they should be free to do as they wish, which is why i don't like the idea of releasing ANY "criminal's" names to the public as its then harder for the "offender" to get on with there life and yes this includes murder which actually has the lowest re offender rate. However currently research suggests that pedophiles (and no this is not the same as stat rape) and rapists cant be cured so rather than giving them 6 years and then trying to lock them up forever in psych wards once they are released or putting them on public lists we should be looking at what the penalties should be from the start. Rather than jail maybe mental health detention in a purpose built facility would be a better option with the aim not on a set time but on a behavioral change. If this is possible GREAT, if not then the community is protected and so are they (i HIGHLY doubt that the way they are treated in jail helps with the chances of rehabilitation). Remember in most cases pedophiles have been abused themselves as children and this cycle has to be broken.

However once they ARE released from this facility that should be the end of the matter and NO people shouldn't be told because once again how can you rehabilitate someone when they will get out of the facility and then be tared for life, abused, spat at and probably murdered. It would be better for them if they were never released at all

 

Anyone who tries to fairly evaluate whether children are even damaged severely by sexual touching is likely to have a short and difficult life too, so we're really not getting anywhere anymore.

 

And if I am not a true believer, then what?

It looks to me like they are treating "sexual touching" as if it is as severe a crime as actually having sexual intercourse. Also, it wasn't science that created the new attitude towards all this. It was mass hysteria fed by an industry that gets fat on human conflict.

 

I can't see how serial offenders commiting crimes predatory, and of a sexual nature can be released back into society, remember if you kill more than two or three times you are never coming out yet, someone many commit a multitude of predatory sexual crimes and be out in a short space of crime. This is the category who this list should apply to (also crimes of a sadistic nature and others like this) because they are of risk to the public as opposed to inner family threat.
Maybe you do not need the names and addresses of the offender just the awareness of there presence, I.E.-

And perhaps specialised centres are better compared to prision as its for the purpose of change to break the cycle, if someone has been brought up from childhood where sexual abuse was the norm within their family circle then re-adjustment to a completely different set of morals/ideals/outlook of life is no simple thing as we all hold on to memories of our childhood no matter good or bad.Where as prision does not focus on the problem but just enforces the punishment so when you come out the rehab possibly could have been no where near to what it should have been.

 

A large percentage of serial killers suffered either physical/phsycological or sexual abuse as children.
A large percentage are predatory sex offenders.
'like a tree, crimes has it's root's if we can find this root we can cure the crime'

I read the other post you put and can't figure out where you are coming from, perhaps you should elaborate:scratchin:

 

PH if they are unsafe to be in the comunity why are they releaced at all?

thats my point, if they are untreatable they should be confined in an instiution until they are treated (even if thats until death) HOWEVER if they ARE releaced then its because they HAVE been cured and should there for be protected from discrimination.

The length of confinment shouldnt be determined by a court and the sexual offeneders list should be abolished

 

I don't know, but it happens. The law in a lot of area's needs a complete overhaul/adjustment to bring it up to date.

Even if they are released because they are ' cured ' don't you think it would be indiscrimanate if people were aware when buying houses or relocating if there comminual area say 5k had an offender of the like in it even if it was 50k? there would be no need for details and could be combined as part of punishment.
The type of crime would have to pose serious threat with sadistic qualities or generically be of a sort which would/could be labelled with potential of leading to a greater crime within the same malicious circle.
Maybe the abandonment of the sex offenders list with an overhaul, have two list's,
1) A serious Predatory/Sadistic offenders list.
2) A secondary list for police use of people who commit crimes which have potentialy known elements that lead to worse crimes of ' Social unacceptance' (offences covered in 1).

 

the police already have such a list, its called a "criminal record" apart from that no i dont belive that any sort of type 1 list should exist.

What is the point of "paying your debt to sociaty" if your going to end up back in jail anyway because you cant get a job because everyone knows you say stole from your last employer ect

The same goes for ALL crimes, the presumption of inocence goes for criminals as well, its what our justice system was built on

 

What if they were a murderer or drug pusher or home invader? There are many offences that people are arrested and serve jail time why wouldn't they be just as untrustworthy as a sex offender? :shrug:

I've never seen anyone "charged" with dressing up as a woman and running down the street for a frat rush before, I think your making that up.

As I stated in my first post, I think that anyone convicted of a rape or sexual molestation of a child should get a minimum 25 years to life without parole. Also as I have stated when they get done with their sentence they should be free once again just like those who murder other people and do their time then are set free once again.

 

A "predatory sex offender" could be almost anything and who dares to question what one is? When you read about the "large percentage of serial killers" do they even define the term "sexual abuse"? When you wrote that you also lumped it in with other forms of child abuse. So what's the mix? One percent sexual abuse, the rest other kinds? You're defining sexual abuse as restricted to that which gives an offending adult some kind of sexual pleasure? You like the idea of blaming all child abuse on sex as if sex itself is evil?

I refuse to be led around by the nose about this. We're being bent over and screwed. I refuse to equate the severed head of John Walsh's child with the age-old practice of 14 year old girls having sex with older men. They don't even know if Adam Walsh was sexually abused because they never found those parts. Wouldn't it have been so much worse if they had also fucked him? But you just know that someone who would have sex with a 14 year old girl is just warming up to be a serial killer. The 14 year old victim is going to become a castrating bitch, so maybe you do have a point after all.

 

I think that there is an anti-sexual hysteria in this country again, that is promoted by the most evil people on the planet, and that the fear that a child will be sexually touched has nothing to do with concern for the child's safety and everything to do with the desire of those evil people to keep us all as children so that they can exploit us. Does that cover it or do you want more "elaboration"?