Homeless sex offenders directed to woods

[Berkut]

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

Yes you will!

In fact, you just where in fact lambasted by someone just like him. Someone in fact, so like him that it actually was him.

[Strix]

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.

No, not all sex offenders are pedophiles. And, no, it isn't blanket bullshit based on fear and misinformation. And no one cares what is best for the convict. Also, there is no such thing as an ex-convict because once you are convicted you're a convict for life unless your record gets expunged.

People make mistakes. This is clear from how the laws are written and effect people. Some sex offenders do not fit the profile of the sexual predator that geographic limitations are focused towards. It is unfortunate. However, it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow sexual predators free reign. The idea that we allow children to be exposed to potential harm so that a few sex offenders who do not appear to present a danger to them can live nearby is ludicrous.

The thing to remember is that all sex offenders are convicts. They are not innocent people being oppressed by society. I should grab the list of conditions from work we make sex offenders sign when they are on parole to post here. They have over 45 conditions they must follow.

[Martinus]

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.

No, not all sex offenders are pedophiles. And, no, it isn't blanket bullshit based on fear and misinformation. And no one cares what is best for the convict. Also, there is no such thing as an ex-convict because once you are convicted you're a convict for life unless your record gets expunged.

People make mistakes. This is clear from how the laws are written and effect people. Some sex offenders do not fit the profile of the sexual predator that geographic limitations are focused towards. It is unfortunate. However, it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow sexual predators free reign. The idea that we allow children to be exposed to potential harm so that a few sex offenders who do not appear to present a danger to them can live nearby is ludicrous.

The thing to remember is that all sex offenders are convicts. They are not innocent people being oppressed by society. I should grab the list of conditions from work we make sex offenders sign when they are on parole to post here. They have over 45 conditions they must follow.

In some cases, however, they should not be convicts in the first place. Some states have laws which do not make an exception for the age of the offender in sex-with-minor cases (and thus it is possible to convict a 15 y.o. for having sex with a 14 y.o.) Such people shouldn't be convicted for sex offences in the first place.

[Berkut]

Such people shouldn't be convicted for sex offences in the first place.

Marty, what is it that you do for a living, anyway?

[Martinus]

Such people shouldn't be convicted for sex offences in the first place.

Marty, what is it that you do for a living, anyway?

I argue on the internet with fat retards who are cheated by their wives.

[Berkut]

Such people shouldn't be convicted for sex offences in the first place.

Marty, what is it that you do for a living, anyway?

I argue on the internet with fat retards who are cheated by their wives.

Sounds boring. You should try getting more education.

[Valmy]

The thing to remember is that all sex offenders are convicts. They are not innocent people being oppressed by society. I should grab the list of conditions from work we make sex offenders sign when they are on parole to post here. They have over 45 conditions they must follow.

I never ever implied they were.  They are people who commited crimes who have served their time.

People make mistakes. This is clear from how the laws are written and effect people. Some sex offenders do not fit the profile of the sexual predator that geographic limitations are focused towards. It is unfortunate. However, it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow sexual predators free reign. The idea that we allow children to be exposed to potential harm so that a few sex offenders who do not appear to present a danger to them can live nearby is ludicrous.

This is the most moronic arguement I have ever heard and it continues to be made.  THere is no way to let people out of prison and completely isolate them from children.  If they are a sexual predator and are going to seek out children they will find them without some sort of 24 hour supervision.  These laws are unfortunate because they punish those who have reformed and have had zero impact on reducing the amount of child sexual abuse in this country.  They discourage reformation and fail at prevention of re-offenses.  I fail to see how any children are protected or any good is done.

No, not all sex offenders are pedophiles. And, no, it isn't blanket bullshit based on fear and misinformation. And no one cares what is best for the convict. Also, there is no such thing as an ex-convict because once you are convicted you're a convict for life unless your record gets expunged.

Where I come from people who have been convicted of a crime and served their time are called 'ex-cons'.  Yes it is blanked bullshit based on fear and misinformation as evident from your moronic paragraph above.

[Strix]

In some cases, however, they should not be convicts in the first place. Some states have laws which do not make an exception for the age of the offender in sex-with-minor cases (and thus it is possible to convict a 15 y.o. for having sex with a 14 y.o.) Such people shouldn't be convicted for sex offences in the first place.

Actually most States have a system of laws that make exception for the age of the offender. There are enough checks and balances in the system that only cases where the victim or the victim's parents/advocates feel strongly enough to pursue the crime is any action taken.

[Valmy]

Actually most States have a system of laws that make exception for the age of the offender. There are enough checks and balances in the system that only cases where the victim or the victim's parents/advocates feel strongly enough to pursue the crime is any action taken.

Yes and it is an important point to make that these things vary form state to state and I guess I should consider the fact that you are coming from how you experience the laws in New York versus where I am coming from down here in Texas.

[Strix]

I never ever implied they were.  They are people who commited crimes who have served their time.

Yes but serving their time only erases their debt to society. It doesn't erase who and what they are that allowed them to commit a crime in the first place.

This is the most moronic arguement I have ever heard and it continues to be made.  THere is no way to let people out of prison and completely isolate them from children.  If they are a sexual predator and are going to seek out children they will find them without some sort of 24 hour supervision.  These laws are unfortunate because they punish those who have reformed and have had zero impact on reducing the amount of child sexual abuse in this country.  They discourage reformation and fail at prevention of re-offenses.  I fail to see how any children are protected or any good is done.

I never claimed it was possible to completely isolate sex offenders from children. I doubt anyone else ever has made that claim as well. I understand your ignorance when it comes to understanding how geographic restrictions help protect children. It's an easy argument to make because unless you deal with sex offenders than you cannot understand all the variables in play. I have helped arrest numerous pedophiles who were hanging around schools, playgrounds, and daycare centers. I have also helped arrest sex offenders who had items in their possession that are also restricted.

I suggest to cure your ignorance that you research sexual predators and learn more about how they go about their business.

Where I come from people who have been convicted of a crime and served their time are called 'ex-cons'.  Yes it is blanked bullshit based on fear and misinformation as evident from your moronic paragraph above.

I'd say it's more of a case of sticking your head in the sand or placing blinders on your eyes. The fear is genuine and is not based in misinformation. Pedophiles aren't a myth. The danger is real. Do you understand that pedophiles not only violate their victims but that a large percentage of victims grow up to be pedophiles themselves?

Once again, I suggest reading more about how sexual offenders build up to their crimes and the cycle of sexual abuse that follows a victim afterwards. It will help you better understand why it protects society AND the convict by placing geographic limitations on them.

[Martinus]

I think a lot of the perceived injustice also comes from the fact that many states in the US have extremely restrictive/far reaching sex offense laws, making actions that are perfectly legal (or maybe a misdemeanor) in Canada or Europe sex offenses.

The result is a group of sex offenders which is much bigger than that in any of these other countries, and I think it is a valid concern that in case of those who commit minor/less objectionable offenses, such restrictions are both unjust and unnecessary.

[Strix]

Yes and it is an important point to make that these things vary form state to state and I guess I should consider the fact that you are coming from how you experience the laws in New York versus where I am coming from down here in Texas.

I doubt the system is that much different in Texas. The State doesn't usually prosecute crimes if the victim or the victim's legal guardian in unwilling to pursue it. If they are willing to pursue it than I am sure most cases are pled down to something less severe. If the State isn't willing to take a lesser plea than chances are the offender is treated as a juvenile and gets their record sealed or expunged once they reach the age of majority. If the State and the victim are willing to push even harder than it's almost certain that the crime wasn't "innocent" in nature.

All convicts say they are innocent or it was a misunderstanding. The truth is that in most cases a convict has been given many chances before the system has finally had enough and is willing to make them do time.

[Martinus]

Yes and it is an important point to make that these things vary form state to state and I guess I should consider the fact that you are coming from how you experience the laws in New York versus where I am coming from down here in Texas.

I doubt the system is that much different in Texas. The State doesn't usually prosecute crimes if the victim or the victim's legal guardian in unwilling to pursue it. If they are willing to pursue it than I am sure most cases are pled down to something less severe. If the State isn't willing to take a lesser plea than chances are the offender is treated as a juvenile and gets their record sealed or expunged once they reach the age of majority. If the State and the victim are willing to push even harder than it's almost certain that the crime wasn't "innocent" in nature.

All convicts say they are innocent or it was a misunderstanding. The truth is that in most cases a convict has been given many chances before the system has finally had enough and is willing to make them do time.

I think Raz may be on to something in the other thread about me coming from a civil law tradition, but this kind of reasoning/situation you present here (where so many depends on factors that are not expressly written into law), is quite disturbing and unacceptable to me.

This kind of Dworkinesque "living law" approach is quite the opposite to what we, Europeans, consider to be a proper legal system. I'm more of a Kelsenesque "grunt norm" kind of lawyer.

[Razgovory]

Such people shouldn't be convicted for sex offences in the first place.

Marty, what is it that you do for a living, anyway?

I argue on the internet with fat retards who are cheated by their wives.

I don't even have a wife to cheat me!

[Strix]

I think a lot of the perceived injustice also comes from the fact that many states in the US have extremely restrictive/far reaching sex offense laws, making actions that are perfectly legal (or maybe a misdemeanor) in Canada or Europe sex offenses.

The result is a group of sex offenders which is much bigger than that in any of these other countries, and I think it is a valid concern that in case of those who commit minor/less objectionable offenses, such restrictions are both unjust and unnecessary.

And that is a very valid perspective. In the US, we place a greater emphasis on morality than perhaps they do in Canada or Europe (or other parts of the World). That is a legacy from our past based on how our country was created. There maybe a time in the future that we want to be more like Canada or Europe when it comes to morality but that time is not now.