what an ass you are, even when it’s clear who I was responding to, you aren;t adult enough to admit you were wrong.
I was responding to the one poster, when folks asked for clarification, I gave it. you claimed that I wasn’t responding to the poster, even when I quoted him.
perhaps it’s you who doesn’t understand how message boards work. posts made hours ago are still there for folks to see. I responded to another poster for that whole tangent. you claimed I couldnt possibly have been doiing that, said ‘fuck you’ to add to it all.
now, when it’s clear you were wrong, you still aren’t adult enough to admit you were wrong.
can’t you just.become a Bush apologist so I won’t haave to suffer you being on my side? thanks, ever so.
Since no one seems able to understand what I say, I’ll post this from D=Odds and state that this is what I meant sorta, mostly , maybe, pretty well.
As to some other tangents running rampant in the thread:
The trouble with the lists is that after the criminals have served their punishment, they are then further punished more so than any other criminal just by because is was an SO.
The World is Round,
It is Not Fair,
It is Just Damn Round !!!
But this does not mean we should not try to do a better job.
IMO, if we can’t do a better job with SO’s, then I prefer not having a registry that the public can see of who lives where.
Rather easily, I’d’ve thought, if the groomee is a much younger child who can be led around pretty much as the older child pleases. I vaguely remember being a ten-year-old, and being around other ten-year-olds.
Still’n’all, prosecuting the kid with the utmost rigour of the law is fucked up.
In fact, at no point in this thread has it been clear who you’ve been responding to, or even what you’ve been talking about.
Alright, fine, you were talking to DrDeth. Unfortunetly, this does not improve the quality or relevance of your arguments. You’ve still been focusing this entire time on wrongful convictions for sex crimes, which is not a problem with SO databases, but with the justice system itself. It’s not even clear that DrDeth supports the registries himself: looking over the thread quickly, all he’s said is that it’s possible to make the lists more accurate. This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the concept.
I’m not sure you’re in any position to be casting aspersions on others maturity, in this thread. Especially after this bit of infantilism:
This is the sort of thing that makes me think maybe we need to talk about your membership in the “liberal but not a lunatic” party.
Hey, tardarella - I only assumed that the posts where you quoted me were addressed to me.
So then, how are we to guess? When you quote DrDeth, it means you’re addressing DrDeth. When you quote me, it means you’re still addressing DrDeth. And then you’re going to go around referencing “that poster” rather than use a name in order to make your intentions doubly unclear?
By the way, whoever you were responding to, your strawman arguments are still nonsensical. Jesus, what the fuck is your problem? This thread was rather interesting before you came in.
Well, I do think Miller’s statement that one must come up with arguments that are only applicable to the databases is silly. Pointing out the flaws in the legal system is, IMHO, a very damn good reason for not having these databases. If we know that there are flaws in the system how can we defend maintenance of databases containing flawed data?
Another question I have is what good do they really do? Many people fail to register and are “at large.” Clearly there are people who are on the list that shouldn’t be. Usually the result of being registered is either nothing whatsoever (consider an economically depressed area where very few people have access to the database for example), or that you are harassed and forced to move around, preventing you from holding a job and causing social problems for the registered offender that may provoke further antisocial behavior. How exactly is this helpful? Does either result really do anything to prevent further sexual offenses? Personally, I don’t think so.
In fact I think it is more than fair to ask why these databases are necessary rather than why they shouldn’t exist. They not only cost taxpayers money, but as argued in this thread they do constitue a form of “punishment” after an offender has already served their sentence, and are of questionable value to society. In the USA of all places, we should be aware of the flaws and dangers behind this kind of system.
OK. Let’s compare it to gun registries. The people who are going to follow the law and register also happen to have a strong correlation to being the gun owners who are less likely to shoot somebody. So what’s the point? The registry serves no purpose other than to provide the government and law enforcement agencies with a list of law-abiding citizens, which can be used against them if the government decides to disarm the public, which happens to be unconstitutional. So why is it necessary? (Of course the sex offender list is different in that it is a list of people who have been convicted of a crime, but keep in mind these people have served their time and if they are on the registry are following the law, so I think the comparison is still valid.)
We know the US justice system is flawed, but it also happens to be one of the best in the world. It is not worth scrapping it completely, but it is worth the effort to try to improve the system. I don’t feel that this follows for the sex offender registry. I don’t think there’s a good enough reason to maintain it.
No, it’s how you argue it rationally. If the argument is over whether we should get rid of sex offender databases, then that’s what we should be talking about. If the argument is over whether we should abandon laws against criminal sexual conduct in general, then you can make the arguments you and wring have been making. And if you wish to discuss reforming the system, which I think is a very legitimate topic of discussion, then citing the system’s unfairness is relevant. The trouble is that if the system is flawed in the ways that you and wring claim, getting rid of the sex offender registry won’t make a difference. If people are getting multi-decade prison sentences for nonexistent crimes, then worrying about the sex offender registry is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
It simply, undeniably does not make sense to put forth the arguments that you and wring have in this discussion.
That’s the big injustice here? People get wrongly convicted of crimes and go to prison for years and years, but the problem is a database with their names in it? Not the conviction? Not the prison sentence?
Now that is a problem that defenders of sex offender registries will have to address.
No argument from me. I don’t think it is helpful; I think the system as it is is badly flawed.
The trouble is they do exist, and under the normal rules of logic and rhetoric, it’s up to the person advocating a change to the system to prove its necessity. If you can’t do so, then your argument boils down to demanding that people justify not changing the system to suit your wishes.
I agree. And in fact it seems like most of the people in this thread agree with you on that. But wring’s bizarre line of argumentation is a poor method of advocating that view.
Hmm. That’s not a very illustrative comparison. For one, it’s not a list of law-abiding citizens. It’s a list of convicted criminals. Also, being able to diddle a kiddie and remain anonymous isn’t a constitutional right. Lastly, and I could very well be wrong about this, but I was not under the impression that convicted sex offenders actually had any sort of choice about being put on the list: I thought they were automatically placed on it when they got out of prison. Am I wrong about that? Because that would seem to be a serious flaw in the way the registry is maintained.
For the record, I, too, am opposed to the sexual offender registries.
I have a problem with the idea of sex offender registries. I have since they first started instituting them. On the other hand, I recently heard on the news that police were looking for a man who was on the list, and had been convicted of molesting a 13-year-old girl, not to arrest him, thye said, but just to ask him some questions. It turns out the questions they wanted to ask concerned why he was observed taking pictures of students leaving the middle school that my daughter attends. I cna’t say I’m too upset with the way the registry worked in that case.
Only suppose there was this married couple back in the 90s. After the infrequent night out, they would wind up in what was probably the last X-rated movie theater in the state. On their way to the balcony, they would pass a burly biker working as an usher, and a large sign reading “Couples Only.” In the balcony couples would have sex while watching the movie, or each other.
The police raid the place one night when they weren’t there. But suppose they had been there. The government does have a legitimate interest in prohibiting this conduct. I mean it’s a public accomodation and if no shoes and no shirt are a health issue, no pants would certainly be one. If you’re going to do that, you would do so knowing that you were breaking a perfectly legitimate law. I can’t fathom what public interest would be served by notifying this couple’s neighbors for the next quarter century. That’s the thing about the registry laws. They are designed to protect citizens from a possible danger, not to serve as a second punishment for the offenders.
remember being a ten-year-old, and being around other ten-year-olds.