I don’t give a fuck about the bolded part, or what personal information you may or may not have. Even if you knew for an absolute fact that he was not a parent, it would make your argument no less self-serving and stupid.
You sound more like an idiot with every sentence you add to this ridiculous argument. I’m perfectly willing to agree that some parents (including, apparently, you) make decisions based on irrational motives and unfounded assumptions. But the fact that those people are parents doesn’t make such decisions any more reasonable or logical.
No-one’s denying your right to make what decisions you think are right for your own children. But i also reserve the right to stand and laugh at you when those decisions are based a wilful ignorance of reality.
Oops, sorry mods. I forgot that this was in GD, not the Pit. I guess i was confused by the fact that peope have accused me of being an apologist for sex offenders.
Please change “more like an idiot” to “more irrational” in the above post.
This statement is bullshit. I could just as easily argue that parents should NOT have any right to discuss this particular matter, because they are emotionally biased in all matters concerning their children!
In fact, the answer lies somewhere between the two. Each side has a viewpoint that the other side may not be aware of, and it’s by discussing each side with equal weight that a general consensus can be reached. In theory, anyway – trying to get a consensus on ANYTHING often seems to be an exercise in futility…
That sort of precludes any more debate, doesn’t it? When your sole argument is reduced to “I’m right, you’re wrong,” you have pretty much given up and ceded the point to me.
If there is one thing I have learned in all my my life, it is that truth is rarely simple. This is not one of those times.
Sorry Kreskin, I’m not wasting my time on you any longer. Perhaps you shouldn’t try to play in GD if you don’t like the rules.
If you are a parent (or otherwise concerned), and you have an offender in your building/neighborhood, why not go talk to them. They know their conviction is public record. They know there will be concerned parents in their neighborhood. If they were convicted for sleeping with a consenting s/o who was a few months younger than they, but on the other side of the magical age of consent, and seem somewhat decent you can relax. If they are uber-creepy and have porn strewn around the house, don’t let your kids sell candy bars alone, they may have kidnapped/raped/killed/dismembered a 5 year old.
Also, if you know their name, you can probably get a copy of ‘people vs/ badguy/badgirl’ and read all the gorey details.
FWIW, I am not a parent/child/sex offender. However, I think it is more than a little arrogant to assume that just because I don’t fit into any of those categories, my opinion is less important or relevant.
I am a parent and I think Cartooniverse’s argument is nothing but so much emotional twaddle. Anytime you’re basing your decisions on how much “control” you feel you have over the situation regardless of actual risk factors, you’re arguing from a very weak base.
You and your S.O. really do need to stop following me around and attacking me in my posts. Very Un-Doperlike of you, you know…
Mhendo, you apologized too late and to the wrong person. But that’s okay. I don’t recall swearing at you, but apparently the entire SDMB is your personal Pit. If my argument is based on emotional response rather than cold clinical logic, I understand why you would object to that as a basis for debate.
If, OTOH, your sole reason for quoting me is to curse at me then I respectfully suggest you take those kinds of words to the Pit, and read the Rules of the Dope before you use that kind of language again outside of the Pit.
Now, as for the Debate at hand- it seems irrelevant that some object to the " I’m a parent" stance. Just as for some who do understand it, it’s highly relevant. You see, a debate about raping children is not one that can solely be held on a clinical level. Either you welcome rapists back into your neighborhood, or you do not. Just as examining the individual facts of each R.S.O. is important, so it is important to give creedence to the protective instincts of a parent/guardian.
I would want to know more. I would not sit there yapping at the corner deli. I’d call and make an appointment with appropriate law enforcement folks ( who would much rather talk beforehand to concerned adults than go hunting down vigilantes after the fact ) and see what they would share with me one on one. I would then do as I said above- educate my kids and take all reasonable precautions.
Pity, that being a good parent is suddenly cause for filthy language in Great Debates.
xbuckeye, I only said and implied that it was not relevant in regards to what to do about education and protection of your child.
Um… I’m not sure how arrogant it is to say to you, " you don’t have a child, therefore you do not know what it is to protect your child ". Arrogant? Not really. Accurate? Well, in your own post you said,
[quote= xbuckeye
FWIW, I am not a parent
[/quote]
I think that’s an accurate statement for me to have made ( and of course, not only about you but I was addressing any person not a parent, so don’t go flaming up because I went after you. The remarks in the previous posts addressed the Dopers reading at large, and the quote attributed to you here is used to prove a point, not be a personal attack in any way. )
Wow, how rude. I didn’t think we were allowed to make personal attacks in this forum? Anyways I don’t believe I said I’m okay with vigilantes (although there is an argument about exactly what constitutes that term, and what is a specific illegal action.) It’d definitely be an interesting court case if someone was sued because they were distributing public information on an apartment bulletin board. It could violate the letter of the law but as it is I honestly don’t think you would get in legal trouble for doing what this mystery avenger in the OP’s apartment complex is doing.
As for some of the other blather you put out, um yes, in fact “someone” was talking about something other than just “vigilantes.” A few times in this thread someone has said, “I think Megan’s law is unconstitutional” and there have been statements that once you pay for your crimes you shouldn’t have to “keep paying for them” once that initial payment has been given. If you’re saying, “someone shouldn’t have to suffer at the hands of vigilantes” I agree. But that wasn’t what was said and I just pointed out that sometimes you do have to pay for your crimes long after the official “incarceration” period.
And? Just putting this out as an FYI? I don’t see where it contradicts anything I said. And I’ve been to that age of consent website before so you really didn’t educate me here. In fact it appears to be pretty tangenital. I said in the case of the 19 year old being prosecuted for having sex with a 16 year old. Obviously since you’ve read the links you put out you’re aware that case wouldn’t exist in a state where such a sexual relationship wouldn’t be defined as illegal. Is there something you are confused with here?
And when did I say anyone had said otherwise? Just because I made a comment doesn’t mean it was a “counterpoint” I thought I was allowed to through my opinions on relative areas in here in GD, maybe not?
Me and you are about done debating because it seems you aren’t willing to entirely read my arguments. The problem isn’t “I conveniently forgot” to mention the “varying degrees” of success thing, but you were unable to extrapolate it from this comment:
“The Merck manual explains that pedophilia can be treated with varying degrees of success. And then mentions that incarceration, even long term, does nothing to affect the desires of the pedophile”
Or were you calling me on the fact that I didn’t mention such treatment can occur volunatirly or involuntarily after incarceration? If so, yes, I’m sorry I didn’t mention something that is a mountain of obvious and has little to do with the crux of the argument.
All I was saying was, “some pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate” don’t read into my specific use of the word “class” that I was talking about some medically defined special sub-class of pedophile. I was just making the comment that there are pedophiles who cannot be successfully treated. What portion of those people on the sex offender registry are afflicted with such a disease I do not know or claim to know. But I do agree with you that making claims for me, and then arguing against them is a very strong argument tactic. When you are the one that makes both the argument and counter-argument it’s a guaranteed victory for yourself.
And as to your “this is meaningless” comment, I didn’t think so. And I still don’t see why it was “incorrect” to simply mention that “some pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate.”
As for the fact that someone has been released from jail, I reply to you with a big heaping pile of “so what?” Violent offenders that are still considered a threat by prison authorities are released all the time on probation because our prisons are so overcrowded. Do you never watch the news? We hear all the time the story of an identified prisoner who is considered a threat to society is released because of bureaucratic failure or simple overcrowding.
And the level of funding of prisons varies wildly. Some prisons are ran very poorly and the claim that these amazingly talented psychologists are analyzing every violent offender we release is bollocks. People slip through the system every day.
So sure, maybe the authorities have released someone but that certainly doesn’t mean they should be considered safe, or that the authorities even considered them to be safe.
Again, I’ve never supported vigilante justice. But there is certainly no “established fact” that what is being described in our case is vigilante or even illegal. We have the citation of the law in question and most people that read it probably have an idea as to what it means but I don’t think anyone here can say for certain they know how such a thing would unfold in a court.
Also I’m going to say to you again if you want to continue debating with me keep snide comments like “I’m missing the point” to yourself. If you want to call my argument stupid, or say that something I said was stupid or wrong then do so, that is what this forum is for. But quit implying I don’t understand you (which implies a certain level of ignorance and stupidity in myself) or I’ll simply “take the ball and go home” I don’t debate with people that cannot maintain a certain level of civility.
As it is, society has a right to monitor and control released prisoners (no, that is not the primary issue of this thread, you are right, but no, because I mention it that does not mean I’m confused or don’t understand the point, I am raising an issue which is related closely with this case, I hope that YOU realize that is a very common and accepted device when making an argument) I think that extends to us being able to say, “this person is too large a risk to be released, we must err on the side of caution and never release them.” I tend to think anyone who is a sex offender falls in that category, you don’t. But as far as I’m concerned I’d always err on the side of caution in a case like this.
Yes, but the law (again, just making the point) can allow less for certain types of people. That is the price you pay (and our courts and our legislators say this, not me alone) when you break certain laws. And again, it’s just a very unsupported opinion that the person in this case is a vigilante. I honestly find it fairly unrealstic that we have a public information source that is intended to inform people about pedophiles in their area and yet have the same law written so that people can not spread this information in a public forum.
And maybe you are not a sex offender apologist but I do consider your views towards them to be very lenient. And I think leniently to the point where I find them dangerous and threatening in the societal context.
I’m using society in a more sweeping manner. Let’s expand it somewhat in that I mean our national society as a whole, and that encompasses our government which can define punishment however it wishes. And don’t bring up the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, we can redefine those too, there is no limit to what society can say is okay. Some societies say it is okay to rape a woman as punishment for a crime, some say it is okay to mutilate someone as punishment for a crime, some say it is okay to engage in ritual cannibalism.
Just because something is “probably” impossible in our society doesn’t mean it’s something that cannot happen, or that a society could not do.
Now yes, microcosmic societies like an apartment complex cannot do whatever they wish and contradict society at large.
Also I never said that incest pedophiles aren’t typical of pedophiles at large. Rather I said “from what I understand” those types aren’t prone to abducting and raping complete strangers, but will rather abuse children they have more “legal” rights to be around/see.
Criminal justice has to work on a case by case basis. Some have “repaid their debt” to society with a simple incarceration. Others need to be released on more restricte parole, some need to be released on lifetime parole or other requirements. The biggest issue once we release a prisoner isn’t debt to society. It’s how we as a society need to take action if we feel this person is too threatening to be left unmonitored out on his/her own.
It’s my opinion that some people can become legitimately rehabilitated, and then we can look at their record and say, “well statistically we can take the chance that this guy isn’t a threat anymore and not have to worry about him on a day to day basis.” Then there are others who I think may become legitimately rehabilitated, but still the risk is too great for them to be allowed to resume their lives as citizens.
I’d honestly say most sex offenders deserve to live out the remainder of their lives in prison. That is impractical because of overpopulatoin and such. So we must do something to protect ourselves from these “monsters that live among us.”
Sure, some are.
Sure don’t, but tell me how else other than a trial by jury/judge can we decide whether or not to punish anybody? We don’t know that anyone convicted of any crime is definitely guilty anything is possible. Evidence can be forged, witnesses can lie, the accused can be tortured until they give up a false confession.
But as it is the best way we have to decide if someone is guilty or not (and suffer the consequences of being guilty) is to put them on trial. And so we have to assume all convicted are guilty for our system to function.
And it goes without saying those that are later found to be innocent shouldn’t have to be on the registry and certainly should be released from prison.
Not always. While I’m sure that there are prisons out there with ethical codes of which you speak, it has not been the experience of my husband, who has worked in many different correctional instutions all around our state.
Generally, the inmates don’t care what you’re in for. Even if they did, an inmate could easily lie, and the other inmates can’t exactly go up to the records office and confirm why the man was convicted.
The prison in which my husband works now houses about 2,500 medium security offenders, about half of which are incarcerated for sexual offences. He says that the belief held by those on the outside that there’s a real prejudice against child molesters is a fallacy-- at least in all of the institutions in which he’s worked.
Now, women’s prisons are a different story. Women who are convicted of harming a child are often downright abused by fellow inmates. We actually had an instance in my state where a woman who’d killed her children was stoned by her fellow prisoners out on the yard. Officials are considering early release for her because of the enormous expense of basically having to keep a bodyguard on her 24/7.
This is not a good debating stance. By this reasoning, we shouldn’t allow adoptions.
While it is true that parents have experience non-parents do not, it does not automatically follow that parents will always act in the best interests of their children, or with their interests in mind - there are all too many tragedies in the news that demonstrate otherwise. There is not some mystical force that upon the birth of a child transforms an adult human being into a paragon of parenthood.
And the “never will understand” sort of pre-supposes a non-parent can never be a parent… which can come across as a slap in the face whether you intended that or not.
And the “protect the child from harm” impulses that normal parents have can, in fact, get in the way of being a good parent. Think about those little jabbing innoculations that produce ear-splitting howls from infants and toddlers… really tugs at those heart-strings, doesn’t it? But it’s a little hurt now to prevent a big hurt later and a responsible parent has to grit his/her teeth and just do it even if their emotions are screaming STOP! STOP! DON’T HURT MY BABY!
Absolutely, you want to protect your children from sexual predators. However, you also want to prepare them to deal with the real world. It’s not just the known bad apples you have to deal with - there are plenty of Bad People out there who have never been caught. You have to equip your children to deal with the risks that are out there - or lock the children up and wrap them in bubblewrap to keep them safe. Except eventuallly they will have to go outside and they’ll be totally unprepared to deal with the world.
There are dozens of RSOs just in a largish city block…literally. There are some that should be avoided, period, such as the rare case of the abductor. But unless we research every one of those dozens (or hundreds, for larger areas,) we can’t whittle it down to the hard-core dangerous people. Sure, if there’s a person who we are thinking of hanging around, etc., who is on the list we can then try to get a copy, but the registry is still less useful since it has so many non dangerous offenders on it.
The same thing goes for the claim by another that “some offenders have a 100% recidivism rate.” Another good candidate for the SOR would be those who offend multiple times against those they know. Those folks have already demonstrated a high reoffense rate.
Similarly, abductors should also be placed on the list, due to the dangerousness of their offense.
If we don’t decide to keep them in jail, I think we should have a SOR with only abductors and serial rapists rather than not differentiating between them and teen lovers and public urinators.
Nor did I say there was. Or,if I did, I’m waiting for a quote proving same. What I said was that there are dynamics at play involving parents and their children than a non-parent cannot relate to. I stick by that, regardless of whether or not you feel it’s a poor debating stance.
Your words. I would never dare to pre-suppose anything upon people. You accuse someone who adopted two childre of slapping in the face those who are non-parents and perhaps think they may never be?? -cough- Oooookay. Just make sure we’re clear. I don’t slap folks in the face for infertility. M’kay? Those were your words, you’re welcome to em. Just don’t go assigning them my way.
Nope. Atrociously poor example. Find another one. You find me a parent that really would want to scream Stop, Stop, etc- and I’ll find you a certifiable lunatic. Parents understand that the innoculation is the key, not a bit of screaming or upset.
Readily agreed to.
Disagreed- not when that means that I have to sit down a 4 year old child and “educate them” on why it’s okay to play outside a few doors down from a R.S.O. as long as they can balance the risks and exposure and make sure they don’t put themselves in a poor position vis a vis lack of protection…Yanno, the flip-side of your argument is that parents should sit their kids down, tell em what the deal is and then cut them loose because to be protective is to be over-protective. To be careful and cautious when dealing with a child rapist 4 doors down is not to be a criminal, but to show due dilligence when protecting your kids. It’s not a parents job to give a set of instructions once, make sure the kids has “got it”, and then cut them loose into the world presuming their child will be able to handle things themselves. Any one who truly believes that non-stop vigilance****** and care and attention isn’t the job of a caring balanced parent, doesn’t have kids.
****** Vigilance, not vigilantism. Let us not dare mistake the two words and ideas.
Wait a minute, since when do we know this registered sex offender is a child rapist? There are many offenses under that overly-broad umbrella, and the point of this thread is to point out that treating all of them like ‘child rapists’ is exactly the extreme reaction that is unwarranted.
-Cough- Indeed. Which is why, if you read my earlier posts, I agreed with Polycarp that there is a huge range of offenses that fall under R.S.O. and the 19 year old “raping” a 16 year old in an Age of Consent 17 State does not, to me, constitute Sex Offender Status ( assuming she consented fully, etc. etc. ).
I would rather hurt the delicate feelings of an ex-con than miss the boat and have my children suffer as a consequence. I’m not talking vigilantism, or violence, or breaking any law whatsoever. I’m talking about due diligence, not blind panic.
