Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

analog · 10-24-2005, 08:26 PM

I'm all for taking children away from stupid people.

When he was about 33, he had sex and attempted to have sex with, and commit sodomy on the same, two teenage girls. Their age does not allow consent, therefore it was not consentual, and therefore rape. Since they were also underage, it is pedophilia. Short, sweet, to the point- he had sex with two underaged females, plead guilty, and was convicted. Done. Done fucking done over and over... done.

The question, as I see it, is what kind of statute of limitations do we put on a person convicted of a crime, and to what extent do we go to assure a reoffense won't happen?

1. Someone murders their family. Do you not allow them to have another family? I'd say there'd be no way they could take the kids in that case, but they did in this one.

2. Someone walks into a crowd and randomly shoots two people. While a conviction would only ensure jail for maybe a decade or two, the offender is allowed back into the conditions which existed during the offense... so if we don't permanently remove every murderer so they can't EVER murder anymore, why in this case would they remove the kid, assuming he'd want to rape it at some point?

3. Let's not forget that the article also mentioned she's a drug abuser, and has two other children that are not in her custody. Sounds like a great household.

I think the bottom line here is this:

a) mom's a druggie, already has 2 kids she's not allowed to have, #3 wouldn't be a big leap. we're not talking about perfect ms. soccer mom, here. there's already got to be a good reason why she's not allowed to keep her first two.

b) dad's got a record of rape of a minor.

Why is this so hard? It's a scumbag family. Take the kids away. Done. Let it be known that if you're scumbags, your kids will be taken from you.

10-24-2005, 08:26 PM	#36 (permalink)
analog Banned	I'm all for taking children away from stupid people. When he was about 33, he had sex and attempted to have sex with, and commit sodomy on the same, two teenage girls. Their age does not allow consent, therefore it was not consentual, and therefore rape. Since they were also underage, it is pedophilia. Short, sweet, to the point- he had sex with two underaged females, plead guilty, and was convicted. Done. Done fucking done over and over... done. The question, as I see it, is what kind of statute of limitations do we put on a person convicted of a crime, and to what extent do we go to assure a reoffense won't happen? 1. Someone murders their family. Do you not allow them to have another family? I'd say there'd be no way they could take the kids in that case, but they did in this one. 2. Someone walks into a crowd and randomly shoots two people. While a conviction would only ensure jail for maybe a decade or two, the offender is allowed back into the conditions which existed during the offense... so if we don't permanently remove every murderer so they can't EVER murder anymore, why in this case would they remove the kid, assuming he'd want to rape it at some point? 3. Let's not forget that the article also mentioned she's a drug abuser, and has two other children that are not in her custody. Sounds like a great household. I think the bottom line here is this: a) mom's a druggie, already has 2 kids she's not allowed to have, #3 wouldn't be a big leap. we're not talking about perfect ms. soccer mom, here. there's already got to be a good reason why she's not allowed to keep her first two. b) dad's got a record of rape of a minor. Why is this so hard? It's a scumbag family. Take the kids away. Done. Let it be known that if you're scumbags, your kids will be taken from you.