|
Insane
Location: Somewhere in East Texas
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBtB
Now, Texx, you said alot so I am not going to bother quoting you but am going to respond to a few things you said. Firstly, in the articles posted here atleast, there was no mention of "sex with a minor". The girls who he was charged with raping were "teenagers", which of course is another broad term that could just as easily be 19 year olds as 13 year olds. One is a minor and one is not. All I know is the charges in the article and the ones he (presumbly) pled guilty to did not list "sex with a minor" or anything to that degree. Now for the sake of argument lets assume these girls where 16 and therefore would be considred minors in most states. I for one know alot of dirty old men who would screw a 16 year old girl if the chance came along. Does that mean these same men would screw a 10 year old? So if a 33 year old was having consenual sex with a 16 year old in a state where that was considered statutory rape and was caught charged and convicted. Does that mean after his release he should be barred from being around 10 year olds?
|
Why would a 33 year old man be having consensual sex with a 16 year old girl? I think that's a pretty perverted thing for a 33 year old man to be doing? Couldn't he find anyone his own age? Even if the sex were consensual, I would be concerned what the man said or did to entice the 16 yr old girl into having sex with him. 16 year old aren't normally attracted to someone that much older than them. The girls past would come into focus as well, and whether or not she was a sexually promiscuous girl or not would be a factor in determining the punishment the man would get. Obviously the 16 yr old girl is a victim simply because of her age, but I would say she was less of a victim (especially if she was a sexually active and promiscuous girl)than a girl much younger then her. Knowing plenty of men who would have sex with a 16 year old girl if the chance came along means that you have a unique opportunity to let them know how perverted they are for thinking that. Put it in perspective, and make that 16 year old girl your daughter... how would you feel then?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBtB
On the flip side, since this guy was NOT charged with statutory but charged with forced rape (but again no "minor" charges that I have seen) lets look at it another way. Lets say some guy has the hots for some girl at work. They are both in their mid 30s. One day he asks her out for coffee, and she agrees. Afterwards he walks her to the door of her apartment where he proceeds to force her in and then rapes her. Again, caught, charged, prison, released. Once again I ask, should we be protecting 10 year olds from this man?
|
Well, I would say that would make him a rapist. That would also make him a sexually violent predator. Unless this man had a history of sexually violent acts against minors, I wouldn't think we should have to protect this person from 10 year olds. But, also for the sake of argument, rapists commit their crimes for many different reasons, and without knowing more of this hypthetical person, I couldn't say for sure whether I would consider him a threat to kids 10 & under. Me personally, I think he is a dirtbag just the same. I am honest enough to know that my opinions on this subject are a lot harsher than the law, and it's a good thing I am not in the position to make the decisions judges will have to make in regards to sexual offenders. In my line of work I don't normally know or care why the offenders I am responsible for are incarcerated. In fact, I could have done without having to set in court all week hearing the details of a convicted pedophile's crimes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBtB
Secondly, just for the record, the child in question is a baby boy. Not a girl. Does it make a difference? No. Does it make a difference in some peoples minds? Assuredly.
|
Does it make a difference? I would say it depends on the pervert's preference. If a sexual predator likes boys and girls, well then wouldn't you say he was twice as likely to commit a sexually violent act because he had twice the opportunity? (That same argument was used in court this week because the convicted pedophile is an admitted bisexual).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBtB
Now tex, about your general experience. That is a sad story to say the least, and to get this straight, the man in question is half way released? That is sad if true. That particlar man is one who should be locked up for life, not for rehabilitation purpose of course and not really as a punishment but mearly to keep him off the street. However from what I have read on both cases, which of course is rather little, the seem quite different. On the one hand you have a man who since very young has been exploiting children and other around him. Despite being caught several times and released, continued doing it, and by his own admitance would do it again if he had the chance. He is obviously deeply disturbed and in need of counselling. The facts on the man in question here is a little differnt, now of course we could go on arguing about the possiblitys of him not getting caught before and/or since for a lifetime, and since no one but him will ever know the truth to that we will never get very far. However, here are what the facts look like to me, a man in his mid 30s had, or attempted to sexual relations with two significatly younger females. Now the fact that he obviously still harbors a taste for the younger woman by the fact that he has apparently married a woman 18 years his junior and had a child with her. Of course there is nothing illegal (or for that matter, terribly uncommon) about that. Now roughly twenty years later, with no incident that if CPS is aware of they felt was not worth mentioning to the papers, he has a baby boy (persumbly his second child, because there is veiled references to rumors of improper relations with a daughter, though no mention of charges). Now if there has been no incidents in the past twenty years, why should we believe there should be any now? To the child or infront of the child or where the child could hear about it, or whatever the percieved danger to a sex offender having a child is. That really is the root of this entire debate. I asked questions like this in my first post but they seemed to be mostly ignored so now I am going to be a little more blunt. Now tex I am going to direct this one at you because you seem to be the most ardent supporter of this man and his child not having a relationship as well as his mother having a limited one. What, specfically, are you afraid of? What I mean by this is, you have allready stated that if it was up to you this man would have no contact with his child. So I am asking you to state, specfically, why. Are you afraid the man will sexual assualt the child? I am sure that is the first thing that comes to peoples minds when they read about this, but should it? As has been stated before, just because someone has done something before does not mean they will do it again. More importantly, one kind of sexual perversion does not necessarily mean another one is there, I.E. assuming he tried to have sex with two 16 year old girls that where not related to him, that by no means indicates in any way that he will molest or in any way try to have improper relations with his infant son. Anyway, that is just one example of what a specfic fear may be, though I would like to hear what yours is, specfically with him seeing his child at all. Even if your fear is the above, why should he not be able to see his son with DHS supervision? Once again I went through that, to say you are watched is to say the least.
|
The cases are different. It wasn't my intention to say they were the same. I did intend to convey that because the man in PA is a sex offender, that there is a chance he would re-offend, and I supported PA acting in the child's best interest by removing the child from the home until a determination could be made. In my opinion though, sex offender's parental rights should be terminated upon conviction of a sexually violent crime because I personally don't feel that ANY chance of a SO re-offending is worth the risk of allowing them access to a child. The cases are similar in that they both involve convicted sex offenders. But do I think there is a difference between a 19 year old male and 16 yr old girl, and a 33 yr old man & a 16 yr old girl? You bet I do. I think the laws could use a little tweaking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBtB
Now, on statistics, statistics lie. Which of course is to say, stastistics don't lie at all, however when you factor in a few factors, namely the accuracy and size taken and the way in which is what factored into something real, well then they can say alot of things and alot of that isn't quite the truth. To say that because (lets say) roughly 20% of sex offenders reoffend (they start peeing on the side of the road again? Sorry... couldn't resist) that means any given sex offender has a 1 in 5 chance of reoffending for the rest of their lives is a complete missuse of the data. Statistically speaking the most likely person to commit a sexual offense against women and/or children are married (or elsewise serious boyfriend/babbies daddy/ married just not legally) men. Should we start watching them more closely? Of course thats silly, this stastic is easily explained, first obviously the ranges are two broad, the only choices possible are men or woman, married or unmarried. Second the reason married men commit the most crimes against women and children is also obvious, they are simply around them more then say, unmarried men, and have greater opportunity for such crimes. My only point with the above is that stastics don't always get you all that far and you need to make sure they say what you think they say.
|
I agree with you that statistics can be misleading, mainly due to inconsistencies in data collection, the way surveys are conducted, and how subjects are selected for sampling. However, stats are stats and people put a lot of stock in them. And, they are useful, as long as we don't base our opinions solely on what the stats say or don't say. The criminal justice system has their own way of figuring out what the odds are of a convicted sex offender re-offending again. They do take it case by case obviously, and in the case of the SO in PA who had his child removed from his home.... CPS will do just that, assess what the chance of his re-offending again with his own child, and whether the child will be in danger or not.
Now, my opinion on what they should do and what they are going to do are completely different. I say, because he is convicted of a sexually violent crime his parental rights should be terminated. As for the mother, as long as she lives with the man in question, the child should not be in the home. As I stated before, I realize my opinions may appear harsh and are more severe than current law on the subject. That's just the way I believe, and I do not envy judges or the criminal justice community that has to make decisions on matters like the PA case where the child was removed from the home. I couldn't live with myself if I made a decision that ended up putting a child at risk, and then something indeed did happen to the child. For me, my opinions err waaaay on the side of safety, and in the child's favor, and I realize that. I am not defending my opinion, because the only person my opinion has to work for is me. I am merely trying to explain it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBtB
One last thing, Ex cons and voting. I perosnally believe that all ex-cons should be able to vote. Voting is NOT a privilege it is a RIGHT. What is the point of unable to vote laws? Punishment? Just see above on that. Are these people not still human? Not still Americans? More importantly, will they not be just as effected by holders of political office as you and me? Personally, beyond ex cons, I think convicts should be able to vote. For the very same reasons I just said. My problem with ex cons not being able to vote is it propagates the notion of a sub-class citizen. It hinders their ability to reunify with society, and undoubtly leads to reoffending on all levels. Beyond that I thought the times of choosing who could and who could not vote went out with white landowners. This is probably a topic that deserves its own forum.
|
Voting is indeed a right, and I agree this topic does deserve it's own forum. I have done a little digging, and have found that not all convicted felons are prohibited from voting. Voting rights have been restored to ex-convicts in some states. I didn't take the time to research exactly which states allow an ex-con to vote. In Texas though, convicted felons can vote, provided their sentence has been completed, they are not on parole, and all fines and restitution have been paid. Here are a couple links to info I found on the subject.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...feature10.html
http://www.righttovote.org/index.asp
I still can't say I am for a convicted felon having the right to vote, whether their sentence was completed and fines paid or not. However like you said, this topic deserves it's own forum, so I won't comment on it further.
__________________
 ...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!
|