stevo

Show me the law in which states you are consitered a "sex offender" for pissing on the side of a building. In most states its not illegal for an 18 yr old to have consentual sex with a 17 yr old. If its illegal in any states at all.

In which case are you asking about? The one being discussed in this thread, or the one you made up where some 18 yr old gets the sex offender title for pissing on the side of the road and then having sex with a 17 yr old?

No one that rapes and sodomizes his own daughter along with other teenagers does not deserve to have children, ever. I don't care if its 10 yrs ago, today, or in 30yrs. tough shit for him. he should have never been allowed out of jail.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Glory's Sun

I'll let jinn show the states that those are in effect, I won't jump on that. However, what I am going to jump on is this.

Now call me silly, stupid or just plain dumb, but I don't see where you gathered this information. If you can point me to the source that states he raped and sodomized his daughter, then perhaps I will lend you some credibility on your view of the argument.

There's a great post just a couple above yours that shows how the argument that you lead into here is pretty null as of right now.

Jinn

For those of you supporting this action (not this specific action, the general action) why do you not support these measures against other criminals?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Jinn

Since you're absolutely wrong, but the burden of proof is on me:

The list goes on and on and on and on and on.. and I'd copy/paste it all for you, but you can do your own research at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/states.htm.

There are TONS of laws on the books about "sexual offenses" that wouldn't justify taking a child, or even labeling someone as a sex offender -- but we do. Yes, in all 50 states. And as for 18 on 17; you're again wrong. 18 on 17 is illegal in most states, with provisions for two minors, so long as they're within 2/3/4 years (depending on the state).

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

stevo

maybe we both interpret how this is written differently

In Alaska it appears plenty legal for an 18yr old to have sex with a 17yr old. In fact it appears that a 20yr old can legally sleep with a 17 yr old.

Well it should be a sex offense of someone pulls out his cock in fornt of random people and starts pissing for all to see his glory. What isn't a sex crime is if you are in public and turn around and piss on the side of a building/dumpster/whatever in an allyway or somewhere secluded. You can still be charged for urinating in public but it isn't indecent exposure.

And I support sex offender registries because the system won't lock them up forever. If you want to get rid of the sex offender registry then never let them out of jail. I have no pity for people who commit crimes against children or for people who sexually assault others.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

SERPENT7

My biggest problem with this is a little thing called 'double jeopardy'. It basicly means that being punished more than ONCE for a crime is illeagal. (Unconstitutional, actually.)
He has been convicted of a crime, and is still being punished for it, and now his wife and child are made to suffer.
This is also why i disagree with registering sex-offenders on the internet. I think the NCIC is good enough.

texxasco

Well so far, the argument has been pretty much focused on the father, a convicted sex offender. His crime was not for having sex at the age of 18 with a girl a couple years younger, or pissing on the sidewalk, or anything of that nature. He was convicted of rape, attempted rape, sodomy and attempted sodomy of two teen-agers in the 1980s, when he was in his 30's, and as previously mentioned in this thread and supporting articles he also plead guilty to those charges. The man is not just a sex offender, but a violent sex offender, and a predator. Being forced to register as a sex offender for life is only right. IMO once a person is convicted of a violent sex act against a child, he/she should lose their right to ever become a parent, or be around children under the age of 18.

One little detail missing from this thread is this: What's best for the baby girl? She didn't choose to be born to a mother with drug problems, nor did she choose her sex offender father...but there she is. IMO it is in the best interests of the child to not only remove her from the home, but to prohibit her father from having contact with her, as well as allowing only limited and supervised contact with her mother. I agree that we do not know all the facts in this case, but in the best interests of the child I would agree to err on the side of caution in order to protect the child, which is what I believe Child Protective Services or Child Welfare Authorities, as Pennsylvania calls it, has done.

This particular thread struck a cord with me in part because I have personal relationships with people who have been victims of sexual assault, children who have been victimized in a similar manner, as well as having firsthand experience in dealing with the perpetrators of these sorts of crimes in my line of work. So many of them act as though they never did any wrong or show any remorse for their actions. The number of sex offenders incarcerated in prisons is staggering. I work in Corrections, and it is not my job to judge the convicts, but rather to maintain custody of them and that's it. My job is to transport offenders to and from prison units, county jails, private facilities, treatment facilities, as as well as extraditions, and court escorts. The best part of the job is that it is a highly visibility job, and people get to see a CO doing his job in a professional manner, rather than just hearing about the bad officers in the news when one of them screws up. One of the worst parts of my job is court escorts, and it is there that the subject of sexually violent acts against children became very personal for me, and it has left an impression on me that I will never forget.

The past two long days I have been tasked with escorting a convicted sex offender, still incarcerated but due to discharge his sentence and be released from prison in May of 2006, to a state court for Civil Commitment Proceedings. In Texas the civil commitment statute is called the Texas Sexually Violent Predator Act .

This particular offender has been convicted of sexual acts involving boys and girls between the ages of 4 and 8. The victims ranged from children of acquaintances, to family members of his. He was convicted once as a juvenile, then later as an adult, sentenced to prison, then paroled. While on parole from prison for his second offense, he re-offended yet again, and was sentenced to 15 years, which is the current sentence he is about to finish. I won't go into any detail, but in court I was forced to hear every little detail of all his crimes dating back to his childhood. To say that it was a sickening experience to hear what I heard is an understatement. I also listened to numerous expert testimony for the prosecution as well as the defense, and one thing that nobody has questioned is his guilt. What they are arguing is whether he has a behavioral abnormality (wouldn't you think so?), and the likelihood that he will re-offend or not. The judge's decision was for civil commitment of the offender, which will begin upon his release from prison, and not end till such time as it is determined he is no longer a threat. In all likelihood he will remain a threat for the rest of his life, and by his own admission in court he would indeed re-offend if the circumstances and opportunity presented itself.

This was just a small excerpt, but the entire document is available in a MS WORD doc at the link I provided above. This is a long-winded post, but I will wrap it up with this final thought. I do not have statistical information available right now, and can only speak on what I have read personally.... but the bottom line is that the majority of sex offenders DO re-offend, and it is only in very recent years that states have begun to take steps to protect our children and other victims, as well as the general public from falling prey to sexual predators. It's about damn time too.

Nobody wins when it comes to acts of sexual violence. Not the victims, not the perpetrator, nor society. I walked away from the courthouse today in sort of a daze, and only came out of it when the convict cracked a joke and it caught my attention. This convicted sex offender, just leaving court, in handcuffs, belly chain and leg irons, and with my armed partner nearby, had the audacity to engage me in conversation and make a poor attempt at humor. I had an incredible urge to inflict on him the pain that he had inflicted on his victims, but instead I just said four words in a quiet tone so as only he could hear me, "Shut The Fuck Up", grabbed onto his arm a little tighter, and kept walking towards the van.

That girl in Pennsylvania was removed from her home for her own good....and the state of Pennsylvania acted responsibly. People can argue all they want about civil liberties, but Pennsylvania spoke up for a little child that could not speak for itself. I don't know all the answers, but for now I choose to protect the children and keeping them away from known sex offenders is a good start. There is a lot more to be said about sex offenders, and the ways in which we deal with them will continue to evolve. For now I fully support the "take the children and ask questions later policy", especially when it involves a convicted sex offender and a child.

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

Jinn

I empathasize with your post and I certainly understand why that is so heart wrenching. Just like murderers, sex offenders can do horrible things to people and any discussion of their court case of their offenses is traumatizing. However, if they are a VIOLENT sex offender with a high liklihood to repeat their offense, they should STAY IN JAIL. I've said it before and I've said it again, if they've been RELEASED from jail, they should be treated like every other felon. No right to vote, no right to a gun, but you're still a CITIZEN of the United States of America. Until you re-offend, we won't be pulling a Minority Report and assuming that you're going to offend again. That would be like creating a registry for everyone who's ever been convicted of a crime, and posting it on the web. If you've been convicted of theft > $500 (a felony, in most states) you aren't allowed to go into a store unescorted. If you've committed Grand Theft Auto, you're no longer allowed to enter a parking garage. These all sound ridiculous, because they assume rehabilititaiton is not possible. There's only one thing missing from the list:
If you've committed a sexual offense, you are no longer allowed to have children.

I'm certainly not defending Mr. WolfHawk, but the fact that sex offenders can have their children, lives, or other things removed because they MIGHT be tempted by a child, I leave you with this:

Is 8-18% really worth taking the civil rights of the 82 - 92% of the convicted sex offenders who don't reoffend?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

texxasco

Actually, the recividism rates for sex offenders vary greatly from state to state. I even found some data on recidivism rates for sex offenders in Canada, and those rates are alarming as well. Even though the stats you quote in New Jersey appear low, and in my opinion questionable, it appears as though there is less than a 1 in 5 chance that a sex offender will re-offend in New Jersey. My question to you is this: How confidant would you feel if your neice or nephew or grandchild were one of those 5? Would you want to risk that child by allowing unlimited, uncontrolled, and unsupervised contact with a man who had a 1 in 5 chance of commiting another sexual offense? I sure wouldn't.



According to the reading I have done, a major problem in assessing recidivism rates for sex offenders in most states is poor reporting system, and poor tracking of sex offenders. Another huge problem lies with the nature of the sexual offenses as well, in that an alarming number are never reported. The sex offender I talked about in my last post claimed 9 incidences of sexual molestation of children alone, of which only 3 were ever reported, and all three of those resulted in convictions. Simply stated, nobody knows how many times a sex offender actually, re-offends. The only stats we have are for those that re-offend and get caught, and those stats are flawed at best.


The laws having to do with sexual acts commited against minors haven't been around all that long. The general public is only now becoming educated as to the high rate of incidence of those types of crimes. I think you will find that in time, laws will become even tougher, and the rates for recividism actually go up as reporting rates for those crimes go up. Also, as states begin to do a better job of tracking sex offenders through improved registration and enforcement of registration, you will also see the rate of recividism go up as well. I know in my personal experience, and in Texas, I have seen a huge increase in sex offenders incarcerated since I began my career in Corrections in 1998. We are only scratching the surface on this issue, and I believe that in 5-10 years you will see the numbers increase dramatically.

Here's a small sampling of sources I found online. I encourage you to read up on it. But, don't just look at the sources I have here. Fire up your browser and google sex offender recidivism.....you will be alarmed.

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/.../e082g_e.shtml

http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs...essection6.pdf

http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism_review.html

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/csot/csot_teffective.shtm

http://incestabuse.about.com/od/inth...xoffenders.htm

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/csot/csot_trecidivism.shtm


In short, and to answer your question.....

Yes, yes, yes..... because our data is flawed, and due to the nature of the crimes and high number of crimes never reported. And the American citizens you talk about, that happen to be ex-convicts... it is only right that they not be allowed to own a gun or vote. And, if there is any justice, in the future if a sex offender is deemed likely at all to re-offend, then his right to be near children, or be parent, should be terminated.

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

Glory's Sun

ok.. hold the fuck up. So now a person who is a felon,no matter what the charge shouldn't be able to vote? I'd like to hear the basis for this statement. I fail to see how rehabilitation is supposed to work when after a convict is released, it's nearly impossible for them to make some sort of life. Where's the incentive to do good? If you put someone on the street with no where to go they are going to stay on the street. Perhaps it's time for the gov to step up and realize they need to help these people in other ways than cages. I'll agree that some data is flawed, but I will call bullshit on your numbers. I ran those numbers by some friends of mine who are actually counselors to sex offenders and sexual assualt victims and they said the average was 7 victims not the ungodly 100+ you stated.


Now about your post about the trials and all that. I'm sorry to hear what you've heard, and yes it is sad whenever there are kids involved. A person like the one you described shouldn't be able to be on the street. HOWEVER, if he is on the street, it would be foolery of me if I treat this man any different than my grandfather. I may not like what he did, but I don't know what his situation is and if he's changed or not. Can these people be changed? Short answer .. yes.

stevo

Thats like saying parole is double jeopardy. The parolee got released from prison, but his rights are still restricted and he can't leave the county! Why that's double jeopardy! he's being punished again, by golly!

Sorry, just like the sex offender registry, it isn't a second punishment for the same crime, it is the continuation of the sentance that was given. Serve time - get on parole - get on a sex offender registry.

Sex offenders in this country are luckey they live in this country and not some middle eastern country where they would tie him down, cut off his genitals and stone him to death. They have it pretty good here. They even get the chance to do it again because we don't have the nuts to lock them up forever.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

texxasco

Well first off.... that quote, was taken from http://incestabuse.about.com/od/inth...xoffenders.htm , and while there are parts of that article I agree with, there are also parts I disagree with. You can call bullshit on the numbers, and to be honest I think
they are high as well, but you're missing the point. It was an unofficial study using imprisoned sex offenders. The point being that most sex offenders had more victims than what had been reported, which is one of the reasons the likelihood of them re-offending was higher than current data supported.

In my post I stated I didn't know all the answers, and I will stand by that statement. I do know that losing their right to vote, own a firearm, etc is a result of them being a convicted felon. I would agree that an exception could be made on the right to vote, and that right to vote being reinstated depending on their crime, and other factors... maybe. People want to talk about rehabilitation? That's really funny... In Texas prisons, the only rehabilitation that exists is the personal desire to change within the person who is convicted and sent to prison, and a small percentage that are sent to court ordered treatment. Even then, only those that want to change will, and I am sorry you disagree, but most don't give a shit. I believe that a small percentage of convicted felons are truly remorseful, and want to be rehabilitated, but the vast majority is only sorry about being caught and sent to prison. Every time my agency asks for more money to fund programs, etc they are shot down. You fault the government? How about the people around you? In Texas people have a get tough on crime attitude, and they feel that way right up to the point where a convicted person is sent to prison. They are all about it through the arrest, trial, and sentencing of an individual. The mentality is lock 'em up and throw away the key. Then there are people like you who actually believe people are rehabilitated in prison and cry foul when a convicted felon doesn't have the same freedoms he had as he did prior to going to prison, or when people are treated differently because they are ex-convicts. The problem lies with you, me, and every other person that has the right to vote. I maintain that a convicted felon should not have the same rights as a citizen who hasn't found him or herself in prison. I thought trust and respect was earned?

I agree that more needs to be done instead of locking people in cages. I have had a problem with that for years. I can only speak for Texas, because I have no experience with how other state do their thing, other than to read about it. Whether I like it or not I treat every offender with dignity, regardless of their crime. Behind bars, safety is my main goal. My safety and that of my coworkers, as well as the offenders that are locked up. I try to lead by example, and show that that by carrying themselves like men instead of animals, they will get a lot farther and have less problems. If I have an off day, and forget to shave before work (very, very rare - but it has happened) then that day I won't give any of them shit if they haven't shaved. I live and operate under the same standards I hold them to. I run into ex-offenders fairly often, and as of yet I have not had a bad experience. I don't say anything to them that I can't back up while they are in prison, or that I couldn't back up if I were to run into them on the street once they get out. But, they have to pay the price for their crime, not me.

Yes it is sad when kids are involved, and that sir is an understatement if I ever heard one. The person I described is a 38-year-old pedophile. Your post is typical of the mentality of the general public today. Let's get tough on them and send them to prison. And when they get out, let's let bygones be bygones and treat them like anybody else. What's missing? What about the kids? They are going to have to live with what was done to them for the rest of their lives. Can pedophiles be changed, the short answer is some can and a lot can't and won't. Should ex -offenders share the same rights as a person who lives right, does the right thing, and DOESN'T go to prison.... That answer to that is no. Not the way things are currently being run. Not without true rehabilitation, if that truly exists anywhere.

Well the man I described will indeed be on the street. In fact, in about 6 months he'll be released. If you would treat this person just like you would treat your grandfather, that's your choice man. This guy is hoping to run into people like you when he gets out. People who will treat him like he has never offended will give him every opportunity to do exactly the same thing when he gets out. People that will feel sorry for him will make it very easy for him to wind up back in prison.

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

BBtB

Hmmm, Just a question, and not to toot my own horn or anything, but I wrote what I thought was a rather thought provoking post, and with the exception of one kudos it has not been discussed at all. Okay less a question then an observation. Now I feel the need to debunk a few things here.

Okay I am no lawyer but I am aware of the law you are stating and also quite familiar with CPS law. The short and sweet response to this is that it has nothing to do with double jeopardy because its a brand new case. The longer answer is this; double jeopardy is a law that states you can not be tried again for the same crime. He is not being tried for this crime (he is not being tried at all). The trial that will follow these actions are simply to determine whether or not he should get his son back.

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? 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

texxasco

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?


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.



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).



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.



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.



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!

smooth

texxasco,

the thing I find most compelling about your anecdote are the facts surrounding his victims:
acquantances and family members.

Given your background, you must know by now the majority of molestation cases occur within these two categories. That is, if anyone is going to molest your children, you almost always already know the person.

Given that stark reality, what good does sexual offender registration do? What good does curfews for sexual predators do? One thing is certain, if you keep sexual predators in their homes and bound to the people closest to them, you will increase access to their "natural" prey.

This has got to be one of the most interesting and crucial factoids that rarely makes it into public discourse when the media portrays these kinds of (re)offenses. It's right up there with child kidnaps (hint: you guessed it, someone (non-custodial parent) who knows the child or runaway) and is a grave disservice to rational people (I'm referring to everyone in this thread and elsewhere--not saying some are and some aren't) debating public policiy.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Philosopher

Perhaps they could let him keep the child, but have frequent check-ups.

The crime he committed was rape, attempted rape, sodomy and attempted sodomy of a couple of teenagers 20 years ago. Not pre-teens.

He should at least be able to have supervised visits like the mother.

Maybe they should have laws where they can have 24-hour surveillance in his home as well as frequent check ups. Then he could be given the option of having the surveillance or having his child taken away.