This seems unwise to say the least.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33060361/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
QuoteHomeless sex offenders directed to woods
Camp is a 'last resort' for offenders unable to find another place to live
AP
updated 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
MARIETTA, Georgia - A small group of homeless sex offenders have set up camp in densely wooded area behind a suburban Atlanta 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 surrounding a makeshift fire pit in the trees behind a towering "no trespassing" sign, waiting out their probation sentences as they face numerous living restrictions under one of the toughest sex offender policies in the U.S.
"It's kind of like a mind-game, it's like 'Survivor,'" said William Hawkins, a 34-year-old who said 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, which bans the state's 16,000 sex offenders from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks and other spots where children gather.
'Last resort' for homeless offenders
It's not the only place in Cobb County where offenders can live — there are hundreds of other sex offenders throughout the county living in compliance with the law. But Ahmed Holt, manager of the state's sex offender administration unit, calls the camp a "last resort" for homeless offenders who can't find another place to live that complies with the law.
He said probation officers direct them to the outpost if other options fail, such as transferring to another county or state or sending them to a relative's place that meets the requirements. Homeless shelters and halfway houses are often not an option, he said, because of the restrictions that bar them from being near children.
Critics say it's an example of how laws designed to keep Georgia's children out of harm's way create a hazard where penniless sex offenders live largely unsupervised at the government's urging.
"The state needs to find a responsible way to deal with this problem," said Sarah Geraghty, an attorney with the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights who represents another man living in the camp. "Requiring people to live like animals in the woods is both inhumane and a terrible idea for public safety."
The outpost also illustrates the unique dilemma the law creates for homeless sex offenders, who unlike other homeless people, cannot take shelter in a church or curl up in a park because they are barred from both.
Geraghty said she has found only one homeless shelter in the state that meets the residency requirements for homeless sex offenders. The shelter, she said, is in the northwest Georgia city of Rome and has only two beds, which are often unavailable.
Living under a bridge in Florida
The tent city is similar to one in south Florida, where dozens of sex offenders moved under a remote bridge because it was among the few places that complied with local ordinances. Florida officials say the sex offenders found the bridge on their own, while some residents of the camp dispute that.
In Georgia, however, Holt said state probation officers have directed homeless offenders into the woods.
"While having an offender located in a camp area is not ideal, the greater threat lies in homeless offenders that are not a specified location and eventually absconding supervision with their whereabouts unknown," he said.
Several of the sex offenders in the camp said they did a double-take when their probation officers told them about the outpost.
"Even the probation officer, he looked at me and said there's nothing he can do," said Levertice Johnson, a 52-year-old who moved to the woods after he couldn't find a job and couldn't afford $60 a week for rent at an Atlanta shelter. "He knows it's wrong."
Holt said the sex offenders at the camp were monitored closely by their probation officials, adding public safety is a chief concern. He said sex offenders at the site are required to report once a week and the office sends a field agent to the camp at least twice a week.
He added two of the sex offenders at the camp have landed jobs and are now moving toward more permanent housing, which he said is the department's "goal for all the offenders residing at this location."
'I'm living like an animal'
Some of the homeless sex offenders living in the woods say the rugged conditions make life seem hopeless.
"I'm living like an animal. It's just bad," said Johnson, who was convicted in 2002 of child molestation. "You can't clean up, you can't clean yourself, you can't do nothing. I'd rather be dead. I'm serious. I'd rather be dead."
For Hawkins, it feels like an extension of his prison time.
The former truck driver has been on the registry since he was convicted of attempted sexual battery of a 12-year-old in 1991 when he was 15. He said after he emerged from his latest stint behind bars without a place to live, he was directed to the forest despite pleas from his wife to allow him to live at the couple's home in Swords Creek, Va.
"I don't understand how the state gets away with it," Mindy Hawkins said from her home in Virginia. "This is ridiculous — especially when he has a family, a home, a support system here. It's inhumane."
Her husband has tried to make the meager outpost feel as much like home as possible as he waits for his probation to end early next year.
He wakes up each morning to brew coffee on a donated gas grill tied to a tree near his tent, showers under a bag of water he fills up at the office park and then treks into the suburban sprawl to search for a job. At night, he prepares meals like "hobo stew" — rice, sausage and veggies — purchased with food stamps.
Hawkins and a few others have begun preparing for winter, with little hope that they will find an alternative place to live. They are gathering a supply of firewood to keep a blaze going for the coming cold and have requested warm clothes from their family.
"You just live for the day, you live for the moment," said Hawkins. "It's not living, though. It's surviving."
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Why not just pass a law that mandates execution for anyone who was ever convicted of child sex crimes? Enough with this constant harassment, let's really protect our children.
Quote
'I'm living like an animal'
Some of the homeless sex offenders living in the woods say the rugged conditions make life seem hopeless.
Maybe they could get some tips from the Boy Scouts
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 28, 2009, 04:35:23 PM
Quote
'I'm living like an animal'
Some of the homeless sex offenders living in the woods say the rugged conditions make life seem hopeless.
Maybe they could get some tips from the Boy Scouts
The Scouts wouldn't be able to finish their first seminar on "fire by friction" before they were all buggered.
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2009, 04:21:56 PM
Why not just pass a law that mandates execution for anyone who was ever convicted of child sex crimes? Enough with this constant harassment, let's really protect our children.
As long as it's a well-drafted law, that doesn't put 18 year olds (or me) to death for banging some 17 year old, this is probably a decent solution, although an offshore colony could perhaps be made to work (perhaps not, if Escape from New York or Devil's Island are good guides to go by : / ). Human rights folks wouldn't like either, I suspect, and they'd have some valid concerns, but this perpetual, recidivist underclass of sex offenders is a really sad situation. Personally, I would rather be dead than be on the SO registry, although all I have to say to this fellow...
Quote"You can't clean up, you can't clean yourself, you can't do nothing. I'd rather be dead. I'm serious. I'd rather be dead."
...is less talk, more rock.
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. :mellow:
Hmm. If only Roman Polanski could live like this.
You know, I'm tired of all this hysteria regarding sex offenders.
I'm thinking of taking all sex crime laws off the books.
The best solution would be to change the laws, particularly so that 18 year olds don't get marked for banging their 17 year old girlfriend. Or to loosen/remove restrictions on where sex offenders live (since there's no evidence that actually prevents crimes). But that'd be political suicide since it's "soft on crime", and will never happen.
DGuller's solution won't happen because of the liberal pansies in the Supreme Court and ACLU.
Therefore, the best solution is for Georgia to pass a law forbidding the establishment of these shantytowns, then break the place up using riot police.
You forgot my solution, which I think is the best way of dealing with the issue.
Quote from: Neil on September 28, 2009, 08:07:59 PM
You forgot my solution, which I think is the best way of dealing with the issue.
Make them spend the rest of their lives building dreadnoughts? Preferably limited to Fifteenth Century construction technology so it really does take them the rest of their natural lives?
Can you make proper dreadnought armor, shells, fire control devices with 15th century construction techniques?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2009, 08:14:20 PM
Can you make proper dreadnought armor, shells, fire control devices with 15th century construction techniques?
Dreadnaughts, Clockpunk style. :cool:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 08:14:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2009, 08:14:20 PM
Can you make proper dreadnought armor, shells, fire control devices with 15th century construction techniques?
Dreadnaughts, Clockpunk style. :cool:
What the devil does that mean? Made out of wood and iron?
Actually, I was referring to the revocation of all sex crime laws by divine authority.
Dreadnoughts couldn't be built with the construction techniques of the 1400s, anyways. You couldn't cast a proper gun, and if you did, it'd explode when fired.
I'm pretty sure neither the math nor the machining was there to build and operate a proper mechanical computer, either, although I could be wrong.
Neil, am I right to believe that all dreadnoughts from the namesake on had mechanical fire plotting devices, or am I just assuming too much? :unsure:
What would Emperor Presek of the Coalition States do?
Quote from: Caliga on September 28, 2009, 06:13:02 PM
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. :mellow:
This is my thinking on the issue. Forget all of the lists and neighborhood notices; if they are going to molest someone else let them rot in jail, if not let them go and forget about it.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2009, 08:18:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 08:14:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2009, 08:14:20 PM
Can you make proper dreadnought armor, shells, fire control devices with 15th century construction techniques?
Dreadnaughts, Clockpunk style. :cool:
What the devil does that mean? Made out of wood and iron?
Lots of gears, like the Golden Army from the latest Hellboy movie.
Quote from: Neil on September 28, 2009, 08:18:43 PM
Actually, I was referring to the revocation of all sex crime laws by divine authority.
Dreadnoughts couldn't be built with the construction techniques of the 1400s, anyways. You couldn't cast a proper gun, and if you did, it'd explode when fired.
I was going to add that we'd have to manufacture the guns ourselves, at least, but I thought I'd let you do it.
The armourplate wouldn't be up to much either.
On the other hand, I suspect that fifteenth century technology might be up to a system analogous to the mechanical computer used on dreadnoughts. There are some pretty impressive mechanisms from renaissance Italy of the period.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2009, 08:19:30 PM
I'm pretty sure neither the math nor the machining was there to build and operate a proper mechanical computer, either, although I could be wrong.
Neil, am I right to believe that all dreadnoughts from the namesake on had mechanical fire plotting devices, or am I just assuming too much? :unsure:
Most early fire control was not much more advanced than a cuckoo clock. It seems to me, if I remember correctly, that decent mechanical computers were starting to show up around 1910, and Scott's director control shortly thereafter.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 08:30:10 PM
On the other hand, I suspect that fifteenth century technology might be up to a system analogous to the mechanical computer used on dreadnoughts. There are some pretty impressive mechanisms from renaissance Italy of the period.
Really, a mechanical computer wouldn't even be necessary. It was only needed on dreadnoughts because of the long range guns. It would be impossible for old-time guns to fire to those ranges, and so you wouldn't really need it.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2009, 06:26:50 PM
Hmm. If only Roman Polanski could live like this.
:lol:
You know, if they skipped boring jail and went straight to this (and it was filmed for TV purposes) I would then fully support his extradition.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 28, 2009, 08:05:55 PM
Or to loosen/remove restrictions on where sex offenders live (since there's no evidence that actually prevents crimes).
:lmfao:
Oh wait you're serious?!?
:lmfao:
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?
QuoteThe former truck driver has been on the registry since he was convicted of attempted sexual battery of a 12-year-old in 1991 when he was 15.
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? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:48:51 AM
QuoteThe former truck driver has been on the registry since he was convicted of attempted sexual battery of a 12-year-old in 1991 when he was 15.
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? :huh:
What do you expect from a country founded by people so uptight that the even the British didn't want them? ;)
Quote from: Ape on September 29, 2009, 02:48:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:48:51 AM
QuoteThe former truck driver has been on the registry since he was convicted of attempted sexual battery of a 12-year-old in 1991 when he was 15.
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? :huh:
What do you expect from a country founded by people so uptight that the even the British didn't want them? ;)
Benjamin Franklin?
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:48:51 AM
QuoteThe former truck driver has been on the registry since he was convicted of attempted sexual battery of a 12-year-old in 1991 when he was 15.
Does sexual battery involve violence/coercion or could this just has been "consensual"?
Why would sexual battery just be consensual? Isn't that statutory rape?
Quote from: citizen k on September 29, 2009, 03:04:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:48:51 AM
QuoteThe former truck driver has been on the registry since he was convicted of attempted sexual battery of a 12-year-old in 1991 when he was 15.
Does sexual battery involve violence/coercion or could this just has been "consensual"?
Why would sexual battery just be consensual? Isn't that statutory rape?
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?
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:48:51 AM
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? :huh:
Probably because our laws regarding underage sex are seriously fucked up?
Quote from: Ape on September 29, 2009, 02:48:42 AM
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.
And, the inevitable followup (get out of the woods, good luck finding somewhere to go): http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21134640/detail.html
Quote from: APSex 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.
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Cut out the middleman and feed them straight to the bears.
Quote from: Caliga on September 28, 2009, 06:13:02 PM
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. :mellow:
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.
Quote from: Caliga on September 28, 2009, 06:13:02 PM
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. :mellow:
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:11:34 AM
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.
Quote from: sbr on September 29, 2009, 01:38:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Strix on September 29, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Quote from: sbr on September 29, 2009, 01:38:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Strix on September 29, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
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. :mellow: 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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 03:22:10 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:02:36 AM
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Strix on September 29, 2009, 09:28:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 03:22:10 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:37:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:24:35 AM
All sex offenders are not pedophiles. :mellow: 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.
Quote from: Strix on September 29, 2009, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:24:35 AM
All sex offenders are not pedophiles. :mellow: 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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
Such people shouldn't be convicted for sex offences in the first place.
Marty, what is it that you do for a living, anyway?
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:47:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuotePeople 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.
QuoteNo, 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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Strix on September 29, 2009, 09:52:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:50:45 AM
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.
Quote from: ValmyThis 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.
Quote from: ValmyWhere 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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:54:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Strix on September 29, 2009, 10:20:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:54:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:47:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
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!
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:15:12 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:24:03 AM
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.
It's disturbing to me and I work in the system. :lmfao:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 10:24:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:47:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
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!
What about your date? Any follow up? :)
Regarding the sex offenders may not live close to a school thing: if someone has the criminal energy to sexually assault a minor, I suspect they are willing to go the extra mile it may take.
Quote from: Zanza on September 29, 2009, 10:30:54 AM
Regarding the sex offenders may not live close to a school thing: if someone has the criminal energy to sexually assault a minor, I suspect they are willing to go the extra mile it may take.
:yes: Didn't Garrido drive over 100 miles to abduct that girl?
Quote from: Zanza on September 29, 2009, 10:30:54 AM
Regarding the sex offenders may not live close to a school thing: if someone has the criminal energy to sexually assault a minor, I suspect they are willing to go the extra mile it may take.
You need to think of it as a tool. Sex offenders are very 'visible' criminals. Local law enforcement and various neighborhood watch groups tend to be very informed as to who the sex offenders are in their communities and what they look like i.e. the sex offender registry. So, if a sex offender is found hanging around areas such as schools, playgrounds, daycares, etc, and so on, they are arrested or their location is reported to the appropriate authorities.
Try to think of a sex offenders actions along the lines of your own experience in dating. You get dressed up, go to the bar, have some drinks, talk with some women, than you pick out the woman you want to sleep with that night. Sex offenders aren't that much different, they get dressed up, go to the local kiddie hang out, talk with some children, bring along toys or other enticements, than they pick out the kid they want to have sex with. And just like the nights you go to a bar just to have fun, the sex offenders do the same, they go to places where kids hang out until they get in the "mood" than they take the next step. It might not be that day or that week but once the
need starts to build...
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 10:40:05 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 29, 2009, 10:30:54 AM
Regarding the sex offenders may not live close to a school thing: if someone has the criminal energy to sexually assault a minor, I suspect they are willing to go the extra mile it may take.
:yes: Didn't Garrido drive over 100 miles to abduct that girl?
This is a fallacious argument - just because some offenders will go to great lengths to commit a crime doesn't mean that there is no point in not making it easy for them.
I could certainly imagine someone who would NOT drive 100 miles to abduct a kid decide he WILL, however, try to talk that little kid in his front yard into coming inside for some candy or whatever.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:42:36 AM
This is a fallacious argument - just because some offenders will go to great lengths to commit a crime doesn't mean that there is no point in not making it easy for them.
There's a big difference between "not making it easy" and "making it impossible to find somewhere to live."
Either sex offenders are uniquely dangerous by comparison to other convicts, in which case they should be civilly committed or not released from prison, or they are not, in which case they should have no more restrictions than your average parolee. My impression of the science is that it is tilted towards "not," but I am open to other evidence.
Putting someone in a situation where it can become illegal for them to live in a house based on the whims of the local school board is bullshit.
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 10:45:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:42:36 AM
This is a fallacious argument - just because some offenders will go to great lengths to commit a crime doesn't mean that there is no point in not making it easy for them.
There's a big difference between "not making it easy" and "making it impossible to find somewhere to live."
Oh, I am not at all trying to argue that - far from it. Overall, I generally come down on the "we over-react to the sex offender thing..." side of the debate.
Quote
Either sex offenders are uniquely dangerous by comparison to other convicts, in which case they should be civilly committed or not released from prison, or they are not, in which case they should have no more restrictions than your average parolee.
I do not agree that the distinction needs to be so binary.
Quote
Putting someone in a situation where it can become illegal for them to live in a house based on the whims of the local school board is bullshit.
It is a rather difficult situation.
I think the problem is that we get mixed up in the debate. Is the debate that the sex offender registeries are too broad, and people who are no real threat end up getting excessively punished? Or is it that people who actually ARE a threat should still not be subject to this kind of exposure?
Those are very different issues.
I do not agree that if someone is enough of a threat to be a continuing danger of which society ought to be aware they should simply be institutionalized forever.
By the way, Canada has a provision where sex offenders can be ordered to stay away from parks, schools, playgrounds, etc. It's outlined in s. 161 of our Criminal Code.
However our system is discretionary. The judge must order it at the time of sentencing.
What it should mean is that only people who are appropriate get put on such restrictions. People who pray on children, yes. Someone convicted of sex assault because they grab someone's boob inappropriately, no.
Quote from: Strix on September 29, 2009, 09:41:14 AMSome 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.
Yes! Better 10 innocent people in jail than one guily person to run free!
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 10:52:01 AMPeople who pray on children, yes.
Why does the Canadian state hate the pious? :(
Quote from: Syt on September 29, 2009, 10:57:02 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 10:52:01 AMPeople who pray on children, yes.
Why does the Canadian state hate the pious? :(
Using a child as a kneeling implement can be quite abusive.
Quote from: Syt on September 29, 2009, 10:56:19 AM
Quote from: Strix on September 29, 2009, 09:41:14 AMSome 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.
Yes! Better 10 innocent people in jail than one guily person to run free!
I thought about making the same argument but thought against it because of a simple retort that we are not talking about innocent people here, but about convicted offenders and the question is whether they are punished too severely, and not whether they are guilty in the first place. ;)
Quote from: Syt on September 29, 2009, 10:56:19 AM
Quote from: Strix on September 29, 2009, 09:41:14 AMSome 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.
Yes! Better 10 innocent people in jail than one guily person to run free!
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Let me preface this post with a "mea culpa," before I engage in a debate as to what the law should be. :blush:
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:49:11 AM
I think the problem is that we get mixed up in the debate. Is the debate that the sex offender registeries are too broad, and people who are no real threat end up getting excessively punished?
This certainly happens, and in some cases people whose actions are no longer criminal (sodomy or fornication) are nonetheless on the registries for life.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:49:11 AM
Or is it that people who actually ARE a threat should still not be subject to this kind of exposure?
Those are very different issues.
I'm unsure how you prove someone is a threat. I will concede that if a perfect threat rating were devised, a sliding scale of restrictions based on the rating might be appropriate.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:49:11 AM
I do not agree that if someone is enough of a threat to be a continuing danger of which society ought to be aware they should simply be institutionalized forever.
Why not? We do it to lots of murderers, plus the criminally insane?
We do it to murderers because that is their assigned punishment for murder.
The criminally insane are an extreme case, and even then they are not oncarcerated for life, but until such time as they can (hopefully) be treated and released.
Sexual predators, if in fact they rise to the level of the criminally insane, should be treated as such.
But someone who committed a serious crime (like rape of a child) who has been objectively diagnosed as a sexual predator who represents a increased risk of committing another crime, but who at the same time has in fact served their sentence, and appears to be rehabilited, could still warrant greater exposure and increased surveillance.
I think a more sensible system would be to loosen controls on sex offenders, but lay down a few rules:
- job exceptions (teacher, toy stores whatever)
- regular counselling (once a month, every two weeks - whatever is considered appropriate)
If they fail an appointment or otherwise show signs of deteriorating in counsel: tighten the screws.
Quote from: Syt on September 29, 2009, 11:10:41 AM
- regular counselling (once a month, every two weeks - whatever is considered appropriate)
The American Psychological Association would like to:
* subscribe to your newsletter.
* elect you to Congress.
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 29, 2009, 11:10:41 AM
- regular counselling (once a month, every two weeks - whatever is considered appropriate)
The American Psychological Association would like to:
* subscribe to your newsletter.
* elect you to Congress.
Hey, they should have a lot of free time now that they can't convert gays anymore. :P
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 29, 2009, 11:10:41 AM
- regular counselling (once a month, every two weeks - whatever is considered appropriate)
The American Psychological Association would like to:
* subscribe to your newsletter.
* elect you to Congress.
I have a three friends with masters' degrees in psychology. ^_^
Quote from: Syt on September 29, 2009, 11:15:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 29, 2009, 11:10:41 AM
- regular counselling (once a month, every two weeks - whatever is considered appropriate)
The American Psychological Association would like to:
* subscribe to your newsletter.
* elect you to Congress.
I have a three friends with masters' degrees in psychology. ^_^
I thought it was against the code of conduct for doctors to be friends with their patients. :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 11:16:10 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 29, 2009, 11:15:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 29, 2009, 11:10:41 AM
- regular counselling (once a month, every two weeks - whatever is considered appropriate)
The American Psychological Association would like to:
* subscribe to your newsletter.
* elect you to Congress.
I have a three friends with masters' degrees in psychology. ^_^
I thought it was against the code of conduct for doctors to be friends with their patients. :P
I'm not in therapy. :P
Yet. :ph34r:
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:42:36 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 10:40:05 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 29, 2009, 10:30:54 AM
Regarding the sex offenders may not live close to a school thing: if someone has the criminal energy to sexually assault a minor, I suspect they are willing to go the extra mile it may take.
:yes: Didn't Garrido drive over 100 miles to abduct that girl?
This is a fallacious argument - just because some offenders will go to great lengths to commit a crime doesn't mean that there is no point in not making it easy for them.
I could certainly imagine someone who would NOT drive 100 miles to abduct a kid decide he WILL, however, try to talk that little kid in his front yard into coming inside for some candy or whatever.
But we don't have laws that keep convicted bank robbers from living near banks, or the like.
Of course, the argument is that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend than other types of criminals--but I'm not entirely convinced that it's true that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend.
It does seem to me that if the state is going to restrict where a convicted person can live, then the state should take some responsibility for helping to find them a suitable place to stay.
And barring convicted sex offenders from churches? WTF?
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:29:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 10:24:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:47:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
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!
What about your date? Any follow up? :)
There was, but I ended up not liking her.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 11:00:13 AM
I thought about making the same argument but thought against it because of a simple retort that we are not talking about innocent people here, but about convicted offenders and the question is whether they are punished too severely, and not whether they are guilty in the first place. ;)
:yes:
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 10:45:24 AM
Either sex offenders are uniquely dangerous by comparison to other convicts, in which case they should be civilly committed or not released from prison, or they are not, in which case they should have no more restrictions than your average parolee.
Actually we do that in New York State. Some sex offenders are civilly committed under Article 9 and are not released from prison because it's deemed that there is no viable place for them to stay.
They also apply Kendra's Law for violent sex offenders.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
We do it to murderers because that is their assigned punishment for murder.
So...we could do it to sex offenders as part of their assigned punishment?
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 12:03:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
We do it to murderers because that is their assigned punishment for murder.
So...we could do it to sex offenders as part of their assigned punishment?
Sure - we could impose life imprisonment for sex offenders, I guess. I don't know how much support there is for that.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 12:11:57 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 12:03:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
We do it to murderers because that is their assigned punishment for murder.
So...we could do it to sex offenders as part of their assigned punishment?
Sure - we could impose life imprisonment for sex offenders, I guess. I don't know how much support there is for that.
:)
I'd shoot Tier III sex offenders, and put Tier I and II's in camps.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2009, 12:37:45 PM
I'd shoot Tier III sex offenders, and put Tier I and II's in camps.
Summer camps? With boy scouts?
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2009, 02:11:17 PM
NKVD scouts. With the beatings and the starvation. GLAVEN!
Makes you laugh, makes you think...
Quote from: Zanza on September 29, 2009, 10:30:54 AM
Regarding the sex offenders may not live close to a school thing: if someone has the criminal energy to sexually assault a minor, I suspect they are willing to go the extra mile it may take.
Good point. We should pass a law to revoke driving licenses of everyone convicted of sex offense, and also ban them from having comfortable shoes in their possession. It's about the children, think of the children.