Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like it or not, the death penalty is not applied to "those who molest children". And once any sex offender has completed his/her sentence and complies with probation etc., the debt has been paid. Restricting a person's liberties after the debt has been paid is cruel and unusual punishment.
<>
It sort of reminds me of the big campaign in the 80's with LE telling everyone to get their kids fingerprinted what they didn't explain was that 99% of the time the only reason LE would need a child's fingerprints would be to identify a dead body, it certainly didn't protect them from harm but parent's were led to believe it would.
On another thread it was related by a friend of a LEO that the fingerprinting was done to build up the database of potential perps, more than for the protection of the children.
Not a real reliable cite, however.
On another thread it was related by a friend of a LEO that the fingerprinting was done to build up the database of potential perps, more than for the protection of the children.
Not a real reliable cite, however.
That's highly unlikely, the fingerprints of kids in the PD I worked for were retained locally they were not shared with state or federal agencies unless the child went missing at which time the parents would have to agree to share the prints state and federal databases.
The whole thing was just a PR stunt designed to make parents feel like the Police were doing something to keep their kids safe during a time when parents were scared to death that their kids would be kidnapped. We used to have boy scouts do the fingerprinting and the prints they took weren't even usable, just black blobs of ink.
You could live 1000 feet from any number of facilities and keep them away. A church, a day care, a school, a park, a museum, a zoo . . . anyplace children congregate. In some States and towns it is 2500 feet.
The point is it’s not everybody else who should move. Either don’t let them out of jail or don’t tell everybody about them. It’s not my job to keep an eye out for former criminals.
There’s a difference between sex offenders and predators. Our map had them listed in different colors. A preditor is one who is actively trying to lure somebody. An offender could be some 18 year old caught with his 17 year old girlfriend by her parents. I don’t see why they should be held to the same “1000 feet from a zoo” rule. They don’t copy and paste punishments for any other crime this way. The whole thing seems archaic.
The point is it’s not everybody else who should move. Either don’t let them out of jail or don’t tell everybody about them. It’s not my job to keep an eye out for former criminals.
<>I don’t see why they should be held to the same “1000 feet from a zoo†rule. They don’t copy and paste punishments for any other crime this way. The whole thing seems archaic.
I wasn't really suggesting you should move. I was just pointing out some areas where registered people cannot reside. I agree that the registry is a blanket punishment, after the completion of the original sentence, that applies regardless of the nature of the crime.
Like it or not, the death penalty is not applied to "those who molest children". And once any sex offender has completed his/her sentence and complies with probation etc., the debt has been paid. Restricting a person's liberties after the debt has been paid is cruel and unusual punishment.
Yet if you notice majority of people actually agree with this law, some even want tougher restrictions, also notice how this regulation is touted as 'being done for the health and safety of the public', even though people are being punished in cruel and inhumane ways, the 'spin' they put on it, makes everyone suddenly think its a good thing.
Its really the heart of the problem, tyranny is being ushered in, but its being disguised as 'being beneficial to the people', or ' for their health and safety'.
This is actually very clever on their part, its the most effective way to ensure there is never any type of revolution by the people again.
Like it or not, the death penalty is not applied to "those who molest children". And once any sex offender has completed his/her sentence and complies with probation etc., the debt has been paid. Restricting a person's liberties after the debt has been paid is cruel and unusual punishment.
The cruel & unusual punishment NEVER ends for these sickos victims.
Ask 6yr old rape victims if the "debt has been paid".
I really question whether some people in this thread are either "reformed" offenders or just heartless. Isn't there anything other crusade that's a tad more important than defending these evil cretins?
<>Isn't there anything other crusade that's a tad more important than defending these evil cretins?
The "evil cretins" you mention are mostly still in prison or in civil confinement and not part of the constitutional issue here. No one here is defending that group of offenders.
Well here's a case that has haunted me for a while. Those two young teen girls in Indiana who were killed while out for a hike, the perpetrator never caught. They think now that the culprit might have been this guy: Daniel Nations: 5 Fast Facts You Need to*Know
The composite sketch is scarily similar. And the guy may have killed a cyclist in my current state.
My thing is this - the guy was put on the sex offender registry for indecent exposure, and I can't help but wonder if this kind of pushed him to the fringes of society and led him down this path where he may have murdered 3 people. (And I've wondered for a long time if those two girls' killings was linked to the murders of two other young girls in Iowa, so maybe there's that too.)
Look, this guy is clearly an unstable nut job. BUT I have to ask the question: Did putting him on a sex offender registry and guaranteeing that he would be ostracized lead him down a far darker path than the run-of-the-mill loserdom he was already destined for?
Look, maybe the indecent exposure was pled down from a far worse crime. Maybe there was evidence that he was a serial offender even then. But ... he was basically put in a certain bucket for an act that, while gross, doesn't actually do immediate harm to anyone. (Just my opinion - feel free to disagree.) I AM aware that people who commit that kind of exhibitionistic act can be just working up to something larger. I'm just not sure there's any value for putting someone on the sex offender track until they've actually done serious damage to another person. Because maybe then you create an even worse monster.
I do think sex offender registries are useful, as I said in a previous post. I just don't think they're implemented in a sensible way. If this guy even just committed the murder of the cyclist as they suspect, his escalation to that kind of violence does raise questions in my mind as to whether he was kind of set on that path when he was already kind of unstable and then had opportunities and his social network trashed by his classification as a sex offender for flashing his wiener. This guy was never destined for a bright future, but ... was he destined to be a murderer?
I'd like to see some research on what the outcomes are when people are put on the sex offender registry for things that aren't really that egregious. I even read about a case where a guy was put on the registry for peeing while at work on a construction site, and another case where a guy was walking around naked in his house and a passerby reported him because she could see into his window. (That guy wasn't convicted, but defending himself in the court case and the damage to his reputation likely cost him big.) I don't think registries necessarily serve the greater good in these types of scenarios. If it's a minor crime, isn't that when there should be a concerted effort at intervention and counseling?
Last edited by JrzDefector; 09-28-2017 at 01:51 PM..
I don't think people should be put on a registry for minor offenses like indecent exposure or an 18-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old. If the registry were only for crimes like rape (forcible in any case or statutory where a significant age difference exists) or intentionally exposing oneself for sexual purposes I'd agree wholeheartedly with having the registry (as long as one can get off of it after a proscribed rehabilitation period without any further qualifying offenses).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
