Until we are willing to lock people away for crimes they haven’t committed, I would say that yes, pedophilic sex offenders should be released.
I’ve often said that our current system of sex offender warnings and things doesn’t make sense, and we should either let them go or keep them in jail permanently. So far I just can’t think of a justification for locking them up and throwing away the key. For some individual offenders, yes, but I can’t see it as a universal punishment for sex crimes.
Elsewhere on this board, I’ve even heard mixed things about recidivism rates. The stats normally go along the lines of “they repeat at a very high race,” but someone else produced a cite that said the most serious offenders were the least likely to repeat. Does anybody remember the link/post that I’m thinking of?
That’s an interesting problem. Sex offenders already face restrictions on where they live, as I think more municipalities are making it illegal for them to live within certain distances [say, 500 yards] of areas where children are likely to be found, including parks and schools. I know that’s happened locally. Megan’s Law has been repeatedly strengthened in the last few years so that more and more sex offenders are on their registries for life and put into internet databases. I think it’s becoming increasingly illogical, and I wonder if it’s not becoming overkill as well.
Right… it says not more than (i.e. less than or equal to) three years, not at least three years. Seventeen year old Johnny is not more than three years older or younger than 17 year old Jenny, and she’s a minor, so he’s guilty of a misdemeanor, and the same logic applies to her as well. If one of them were more than three years older than the other, it’d be “either a misdemeanor or a felony”, whatever that means.
Agreed.
Some people on this thread are nit-picking about sex crimes. What is the age, whether or not there is violence, etc. Give it a rest. That’s as bad as some of the “What if…” scenario threads we have floating around (“What if your terminally ill child is trapped in a burning car while rabid wolverines were gnawing on their legs and you had to set off a nuclear tipped missile in order to save their life? Would you do it?” :rolleyes: ) Anybody could come up with loopholes and bizarre situations if they want to. In fact, that’s usually what defense lawyers and accountants seem to do (no offense to the lawyers and accountants) 
.
States have laws that make distinctions about the severity of the crime when it comes to underage victims. The laws also detail the differences in ages between perpetrator and victim.
So enough already about the 18 year old boyfriend with his 16 year old girlfriend. The parents of the girl might push for him to be charged because they don’t like him, but that is not what the laws were written for, and you all know it!
As for the matter of non-violent sexual crimes, personally, I don’t want to be living next door to someone who collects child porn or has exposed himself to school kids. Those are non-violent crimes, no one was physically hurt by them. But I don’t think my family needs to have them around.
Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra Favre committed “non-violent” sex crimes because they had consensual sex with their underage students. Are you saying that you have no problem with them hanging around your 13 year old sons? Well, I’ve got a problem with it.
All of you with children, let’s do a little thought experiment: Think about your beautiful, innocent child sleeping in their beds. The only monsters they know about are the ones in Monsters, Inc. They know you are there to keep them safe and kiss their boo-boos.
Then think about them telling you that Mr. Smith showed them his pee-pee. Or that Reverend Jones took pictures of them with their cloths off. Or that little Tommy down the street, the one that your daughter thought of as another brother, wanted to see her underwear and then he touched her parts.
Then imagine finding out that Mr. Smith, Reverend Jones and little Tommy had served their time for similar “non-violent” crimes but no longer had to register as offenders. They had “paid their debt to society” and were legally free to live wherever the hell they wanted, including within 500 feet of a school, park, day care center and so on. Imagine looking your son or daughter in the face and knowing that you couldn’t protect them. You can’t put a Band-aid on this boo-boo.
Oh, and to give you a little update about the model citizen down the block from me and his oh-so-supportive and concerned parents. Even though he is supposed to be under constant parental supervision, he was spotted biking alone two blocks from his house. He was seen going into a house where there are a 14 year old boy and two girls, 10 and 7. The parents both work and the 14 year old is supposed to watch his sisters until mom and dad get home. He hasn’t committed any crime yet so we shouldn’t tell the parents, should we? :dubious: If you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic.
On Saturday, we had my daughter’s birthday party with all of her school friends and relatives. My neighbors rode their bikes along the bike path behind our house and flipped off me and my wife. Do these seem like the kinds of people who will ensure that their son gets the treatment he needs and that he will be controlled? I don’t think so.
So your position is life imprisonment for violent pedophiles and various equal or lessor punishments for non-violent pedophiles and other sexual offenders? Okay, but the OP didn’t limit life imprisonment to just violent pedophiles. I think your distinction is important. Do you really think it’s the only distinction that should be made in punishing the entire range of sex crimes against children?
Violent offenders (and I consider any genital contact as a violent act when children are involved) should be incarcerated for the maximum time under the law without possibility of parole. While incarcerated they are to undergo extensive psychiatric counseling. A condition of their release should be continuous counseling and mandatory implanting of tracking chips. No I am not joking. You cannot count on these people to register
and I don’t think it is right for a law abiding citizen to be put at risk just because it violates the civil rights of these individuals. Public safety and the greater good is more important.
Non-violent offenders upon release from prison should be forced to register and never be removed from the registry.
Juveniles should not be excluded from the online registry. I would like to know if my daughter is in school with a kid who had been convicted of a sex crime. Do you really think he’s going to tell her (or me), “Well, you know, I did touch this one 6 year old girl once, but it was a long time ago.”
I realize that my views are a little extreme but I am coming from the viewpoint of the father of a victim. It’s easy to talk about fairness and leniency and second chances when you have had nothing done to you or your family. You can talk about social problems and poor parenting till you are blue in the face. But when you have been hit and are face to face with the problem, it’s hard to turn the other cheek. The Bible says, "’Vengeance belongs to ‘ says the Lord, ‘“I will repay.’” But it takes too damn long.
Thanks. I mistakenly thought you were supporting the life imprisonment for all pedophiles premise of the OP.
Whatever the legislature might’ve had in mind at the time, the laws as written often do apply to cases like that, and we have to take that into account when deciding what the sentence for violating those laws should be.
I doubt I would.
I would like to know if the person moving in next door to me is a murderer, an arsonist, a burglar, or a cannibal. What’s so special about sex crimes?
What if it was a 35 year old man and your 13 year old daughter? That would be acceptable also? Not for me.
I’d be concerned about all those situations also. I wouldn’t want them around if I could avoid it.
Ask anyone who has suffered a sexual assault, whether it is a rape, a flasher a peeping tom or whatever how they feel afterwords. After a crime people feel violated and vulnerable. If you have been robbed you can always get new locks. After a fire, you can move to a new home. After a loved one is murdered, you are still alive but hurt yet you can still keep going and learn to love again.
You can move away from a criminal but you can never move away from yourself
I know you’d like this to be very simple, but pretending that it IS won’t help and won’t make for better laws.
I know, ‘who the hell am I,’ but it sounds like you’re getting more emotionally invested in this thread than you should. Take a breath, okay? The law isn’t supposed to be about the 18-year-old and the 16-year-old, but if it affects them or causes problems for people who aren’t the real problem, then the law isn’t right.
Consensual is consensual, why should the genders matter?
I’m very close to someone who’s been in that situation already.
Thing is, your feelings alone don’t justify restricting anyone else’s freedom. If he poses a legitimate threat, then sure, lock him up. But if it just makes you upset to know that he’s out of jail, that’s something you have to deal with on your own.
There is also the issue, no doubt, of the offender’s mental ability. What if he’s not past the two year old stage in his mind and isn’t a pervert, doesn’t realize it’s sexual? What’re you going to do with him?
Marley23, I am very emotionally invested in this because of what happened to my daughter. I am frustrated as all hell that the legal system is so screwed up that, even though the kid confessed of his own free will to his parents, DCFS and the cops, he is still walking around unsupervised (which is against the rules imposed by the cops, probation officer and DCFS until the court date), the schools can’t keep him off the bus because he hasn’t been convicted, we can’t file a restraining order against him and his family until after the court date, his family is bad mouthing us and flipping us off like we are the criminals.
The laws are made very ambiguous intentionally to cover a variety of situations. The petty details and obscure cases are what screws it up. Yet if you look at many of the actual charges, you can see how they try to make it specific where they can. In my daughter’s case, he should be charged with:
That seems pretty damn cut and dried for a 14 year old touching a 5 year old.
Genders don’t matter. The examples I gave were adult females with underage males. I got the impression from your response that this particular scenario didn’t bother you and wanted clarification if it went the other way. The problem is that it is not consensual if the 13 year old is under the age of consent. It doesn’t matter if the kid says, “I wanted to bang the teacher.” If the law says they are not at the age of consent, then the adult (male or female) has committed a sex crime and should be punished. The ones who have done it multiple times with many kids are predators. And I don’t want them living next door.
I’m so sorry. I hope they get all of the help they need and my thoughts go out to them.
You’re right, my feelings alone don’t. But what about the feelings of the other 100 families in my subdivision? What about all of the parents? What about the parents of the kids in his school who don’t know what he has done? Even if he is convicted and has to register as an offender they will never know about it because he is a minor. Because he has confessed and will probably plead guilty, he will be given a lighter sentence, most likely probation. Hell, they might have plea bargained to a lighter crime where he won’t have to register. If that happens, he and his family are free to go wherever the hell they want. And no one will ever now that the fox is in the henhouse until it’s too late.
Institutionalize him. If Lenny kills someone because he hugged them too hard are you going to say, “Gee, the big galoot didn’t know his own strength. Let him go back to the farm.” If he is touching little girls under their panties because he thinks they are pretty, that does not change the fact that he is touching little girls against their will.
If the perp does not have the mental capacity, the law still requires that they be locked up for the public good because they committed a crime. I disagree with the death penalty for the mentally impaired. I do not disagree with locking them up if they broke the law.
I’ll admit it, folks. I am a very angry man. I am outraged that my little girl was molested. I am furious that I couldn’t prevent it. I’m sickened that I had to take my 5 year old daughter to the hospital so they could use a rape kit on her and then have her talk with a forensic interviewer about what “Tommy” did to her. I’m disgusted that a boy that I trusted and let into my home to sleep, eat, play has violated the trust of my family. I’m revolted that the law does everything to protect the criminal and doesn’t do squat for the victim.
My earlier postings where I ranted about the violence that should be inflicted upon pedophiles are the vitriol of a father left impotent in the face of lost innocence. I would not really do those things (doesn’t stop me from fantasizing, though).
I used to feel as many of you do. I believed in second chances and redemption. I believed like Father Flanagan that “there is no such thing as a bad boy.” I believed in the better nature of people and was generally an optimist about most things. Then my life horribly changed.
I was pretty liberal about rehabilitation and redemption. Then the scales dropped from my eyes. Now I’ve swung the other way and see little hope beyond incarceration. Keep them off the streets so no one will get hurt. Lock them away and no one will suffer. Scream from the rooftops about where the perverts live so we can be warned and protect ourselves.
I pray you never have to face this and that you can stay true to your convictions. I pray that your loved ones stay safe. I pray that your values can remain unchanged. I pray for peace and serenity.
I understand why you’re so emotional about the issue, I’m just talking about this thread, where even if you convince everyone it won’t change things. I know you want your daughter protected immediately, but even changing the law wouldn’t help you in this situation - unless, that is, you’re saying that anybody who is charged with a sex crime should be locked up forever without a trial. Maybe you said that and I missed it.
It is, yeah. If there are few questions about that case, there could be questions about others. I don’t know how “obscure” or rare the more complicated cases are, though. I think that’s important.
I know that my ranting and raving here won’t change a single thing in the real world. But I want people to think about real world situations and not the abstracts and “what if” scenarios. Sure we can go on all day with weird ideas. “What if he was 18 and she was 13 but they started doing it at 11:59 PM the night before her birthday and so they finished up when she was 14 which is the age of consent in their hometown of Looneyville, WV. And she has a borderline IQ. Would that be sexual assault?”
I’m not saying that if they are charged that they should be locked up forever without trial. If the crime is heinous enough they should be held without bond, of course. But after they have completed the terms of their sentencing, I do not believe we should be allowing them to be walking around unmonitored. There are over 500,000 convicted sex offenders on the street right now who are required by law to register their whereabouts.
However,
Even the electronic monitoring in Florida as required by the Jessica Munford law is not completely effective.
These are animals, preying on the weakest members of society. They are predators who act without conscious.
Looking through Illinois law, they parse it out pretty well for ages of victim and perp, mental capacity of the victim, penetration vs. sexual conduct, child porn, etc. IANAL but I can only assume that most states have done similar work with their own laws because the have been involved with legislation for a couple of years.
I’m just infuriated with people basically excusing sexual abuse. Yet you will never hear them say, “Since she initially agreed to have sex, she is not allowed to change her mind,” or, “She went to his room wearing a sexy dress with no underwear so she obviously was expecting to have sex and has no reason to cry rape.”
West Virginia, the stereotype state: Looneyville, WV
You mean it’s real!?!?! I thought I just made it up!!! :eek:
Sure it is. It might not meet some legal definition of consent, but we’re not lawyers here. We can tell there’s a difference between sex with someone who doesn’t want it and with someone who does, and even though they’re both crimes, one is far worse than the other.
Again, this is why I can’t agree with the OP’s proposition. Consensual sex with a minor is worlds apart from actual rape or child molestation, and Mary Kay Letourneau types do not deserve the same punishment.
No, all those feelings put together still don’t justify locking someone up if he doesn’t pose a legitimate threat. That would just be savage vengeance. You don’t get to take away someone else’s freedom just to make yourself feel better.
You’re not a spokesman for NAMBLA by any chance? :dubious:
Children, by their very nature, do not have the emotional and intellectual experience to make rational decisions, especially when sex is involved. A 14 year old girl who is flattered because a grown man is attracted to her isn’t thinking about the physical and emotional consequences of her actions. An 8 year old girl who is told by her daddy that she is beautiful and agrees to his advances is being abused despite the fact that she said yes. Lolita was sexual advanced but her relationship with Humbert Humbert was still a crime.
We don’t allow children to sign contracts. They are not allowed to marry until they reach certain ages which vary from state to state. They can’t drive, vote or join the military until they reach certain ages. They are not allowed to be independent from guardians until they reach certain ages unless courts rule them emancipated. Yet you claim that it is alright for a 13 year old to just say OK and hop in the sack with a 40 year old.
Someone who thinks it is OK to have sex with children is a legitimate threat. Their presence is a danger to everyone around them. They are walking timebombs.
I don’t think he’s saying that it’s okay. I think he’s saying that there is somewhat of a difference between an act to which the child consented and one in which the child is terrorized while being violently raped. Either way, the adult should face consequences, but the impact on the victim is different.
Let’s not forget that a couple of hundred years ago, that same 13 year old could have been given to the forty year old in marriage with nary an eyebrow raised.