Homeless sex offenders directed to woods

[Valmy]

Does sexual battery involve violence/coercion or could this just has been "consensual"? If it's the latter, how can you jail one kid for having sex with another kid? 

Probably because our laws regarding underage sex are seriously fucked up?

[Valmy]

What do you expect from a country founded by people so uptight that the even the British didn't want them? 

The British sure fought hard for eight or so years for a people they didn't want.

[ulmont]

And, the inevitable followup (get out of the woods, good luck finding somewhere to go): http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21134640/detail.html

Sex Offenders Ordered Out Of Cobb Camp

MARIETTA, Ga. -- A small group of homeless sex offenders have been ordered to move from a makeshift camp in a densely wooded area behind a suburban Atlanta office park.

The sex offenders had been directed to the camp by probation officers. The officers said it was a location of last resort for the sex offenders who are barred from living in many areas by one of the nation's toughest sex offender policies.

Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren said the decision to make the sex offenders move was made by the Georgia Department of Transportation -- the owner of the property.

Warren said he did not know where the sex offenders would go next.

The small group of homeless sex offenders have set up camp in densely wooded area behind a Cobb office park, directed there by probation officers who say it's a place of last resort for those with nowhere else to go.

The nine sex offenders live in tents in the trees behind a towering "no trespassing" sign, waiting out their probation sentences as they face numerous restrictions under one of the nation's toughest sex offender policies.

William Hawkins is a 34-year-old who says he was directed to the campsite two weeks ago after being released from prison for violating probation for failing to register as a sex offender in Georgia.

The muddy camp on the outskirts of prosperous Cobb County is an unintended consequence of Georgia's sex offender law.

[Valmy]

I mean seriously if they are going to make life this miserable for sex offenders they probably should just keep them in prison.  It is simply unjust to "release" them like this and make them some sort of public pariah their whole lives.  I mean how are they going to get work and create a new life like this?  It sounds like we are all but forcing them to become (well...remain) criminals just to make it.  It is especially ridiculous for the large number of them who commited their crime prior to the age of 20 and have never re-offended.

The muddy camp on the outskirts of prosperous Cobb County is an unintended consequence of Georgia's sex offender law.

Yeah...unintended...it makes you wonder what exactly the intended consequences were.

[Brazen]

Cut out the middleman and feed them straight to the bears.

[KRonn]

Suggestion: Stop harassing people that have paid their debt to society, unless they are still considered a threat, in which case do not release them.  All the child protection shit in the state of California didn't stop that Garrido (registered sex offender) guy from keeping a sex slave for decades.

I'm also starting to come around to this line of thinking. The thing I get angry with are the cases like Garrido and others who are still dangerous, or have done things so bad that  they shouldn't have been out of prison.

[Valmy]

Suggestion: Stop harassing people that have paid their debt to society, unless they are still considered a threat, in which case do not release them.  All the child protection shit in the state of California didn't stop that Garrido (registered sex offender) guy from keeping a sex slave for decades.

Precisely.

It does rather boil my blood that all sex offenders have to suffer because there are some sick fucks who are simply dangerous and continually re-offend.  Come now surely some people are allowed to learn their lesson, shape up, and move on.

Besides, as you say, those sex offenders who are still dangerous are going to re-offend anyway regardless of how many stupid rules you make.  The only ones who suffer are those trying to do the right thing.

[Martinus]

Agreed. The problem is that there is really no attempt made to segregate dangerous sex offenders (rapists, actual pedophiles) from people who are highly unlikely to reoffend or shouldn't have been charged at all, had the laws been reasonable (a 18 y.o. having sex with a 17 y.o., for example).

However, because the issue is politically toxic (no sane politician wants to be dubbed a "kiddie fucker defender" by the rabid media and other organizations), noone is making a serious attempt to remedy the situation.

[Valmy]

However, because the issue is politically toxic (no sane politician wants to be dubbed a "kiddie fucker defender" by the rabid media and other organizations), noone is making a serious attempt to remedy the situation.

Things in the US tend to go in cycles.  We will have a period where we loosen things up too much followed by a period where we get really harsh depending on the whim of public opinion.  Eventually stories of the unjust suffering of sex offenders for things they did decades ago that they have never repeated will start circulating and the laws will be reformed....but then they will go too far the other way and then some atrocity will be committed and back the other direction we will go.

[Strix]

You have any links to prove otherwise?

The idea of limiting where a free person can live is insane.  If the person is a threat to commit another crime they should never leave prison.  If they aren't and they have served their time why should they continue to be discriminated against with watch lists and neighborhood warnings?

It's not something that you can quantify because no one keeps the statistics of where sex offenders are arrested. It just takes common sense to realize the value of the law. Letting a pedophile live next to a school or daycare center is tantamount to declaring open season. It's not in the best interests of the children NOR is it in the best of interests of the pedophile if he is trying to stay out of prison.

You have to understand the nature of child rapists and how they go about their crimes to understand the value of the tool that is restricting their geographic locations.

[Martinus]

You have any links to prove otherwise?

The idea of limiting where a free person can live is insane.  If the person is a threat to commit another crime they should never leave prison.  If they aren't and they have served their time why should they continue to be discriminated against with watch lists and neighborhood warnings?

It's not something that you can quantify because no one keeps the statistics of where sex offenders are arrested. It just takes common sense to realize the value of the law. Letting a pedophile live next to a school or daycare center is tantamount to declaring open season. It's not in the best interests of the children NOR is it in the best of interests of the pedophile if he is trying to stay out of prison.

You have to understand the nature of child rapists and how they go about their crimes to understand the value of the tool that is restricting their geographic locations.

The problem is that most people qualified as sex offenders (even if their offence involves having sex with a minor) are not pedophiles, and treating them as such is both unjust and counterproductive.

[Valmy]

It's not something that you can quantify because no one keeps the statistics of where sex offenders are arrested. It just takes common sense to realize the value of the law. Letting a pedophile live next to a school or daycare center is tantamount to declaring open season. It's not in the best interests of the children NOR is it in the best of interests of the pedophile if he is trying to stay out of prison.

You have to understand the nature of child rapists and how they go about their crimes to understand the value of the tool that is restricting their geographic locations.

All sex offenders are not pedophiles.   Distinctions need to be made about what is best in individual cases not just blanket bullshit that strikes me as based on fear and misinformation than what is actually best for the public and the ex-convict.

It is about as common sensical as treating all murderers the same regardless of intention, premeditation or any other detail.

[Strix]

Surely you recognise the difference when both participants in the sex act are below the age of consent, right? Are they both then guilty of statutory rape?

Are you really a lawyer? Surely you recognize the term statutory rape means something that is regulated by a clear definition set out in a statute? The whole idea of statutory rape is that one or more parties to the sexual act are not legally able to give consent, and that, in most if not all States, the exact relationships between the parties e.g. age, mental condition, etc, is written out in the statute itself.

[ulmont]

The muddy camp on the outskirts of prosperous Cobb County is an unintended consequence of Georgia's sex offender law.

Yeah...unintended...it makes you wonder what exactly the intended consequences were.

I'm sure the intended consequences were that they would all move out of state with no money.  They probably should have given each released prisoner a bus ticket out of Georgia.

[Martinus]

Surely you recognise the difference when both participants in the sex act are below the age of consent, right? Are they both then guilty of statutory rape?

Are you really a lawyer?

This shtick/line is really getting old, and is used against me when I am challenging the rationale/reasonableness of some law or another.

It usually comes from cretins with inferiority complex, like you.

I will not be lambasted for not knowing my profession by some miserable trash, like you.