Living Near Sex Offenders

There is good reason to believe reform is not possible. Look at the recidivism rates for pedophiles.

Either way, I reject the notion that it's possible to ever fully pay restitution for raping a child. To me, the question is not whether it's right to stigmatize them after they are released, but why in the holy fuck they were ever released in the first goddamn place.

Can you get put on the list for parading about on your balcony with nothing but your underwear on?

Also, how on earth is having a plan to kill him if he does something to your son going to help the situation. Surely if killing anyone was an option, it would be pre-emptive. If you do it after he's harmed your child then its not going to help the child one bit.

Not that Im suggesting you murder this guy, Im just pointing out the inherrant flaws in Apostles bloodlust.

Wow, its taken more than 10 years but I finally agree with you on something.

T-shirt and boxer briefs. And grilling a chicken breast carries no sexual undertones that I'm aware of.

Maybe some of you approach cooking a bit differently...

Don't diminish yourself. T-shirt and boxers, you sexy thing!

You only found one?

Anyways......

[wyt=This will work]czyrjDjQP_w[/wyt]

The fuck is wrong with that kid's hair? Was that some kind of nomadic tribe of gypsy carnival folk, or something?

nope, looked it up and you've been safe since 1977.

but a bit of google fu shows that not only are sex offenders being registered in Lincoln Co NB, but so is anyone convicted of an assault, stalking, or B&E.

As Anc pointed out a few posts ago, sexual offenders aren't untreatable, but it is costly and unpopular.

As I point out, a common factor is that most offenders are former victims.

It's understandable that we have no sympathy for their crimes, but what about the source of them?

I suppose it boils down to if you believe in prevention of prisons

she looks native to me.

I don't. Some people can't be redeemed, and if you can't stomach mass executions, that leaves exile or incarceration.

And I would no more take past abuse into consideration than I would with poverty as a "mitigating factor" in a theft. If you're so fucked up in the head that you're physically incapable of stopping yourself, you should be locked away somewhere anyway. But for the rest, people with heinous proclivities they must choose to act upon, you are responsible for that choice and I do not give a fuck about your tragic past.

*prevention OR prisons... my bad

Prisons are prevention. The only sort of prevention anyone has any business expecting from soceity. People who require the sort of "prevention" that gently (and expensively) "encourages" them to make better choices with their little amoral shitbag selves in the first place have no place in civilization.

on the same block? unless you can find out what exactly happened and make sure it was a peeing in public incident or something like that.....I wouldn't move there with a small child. the risk may be minimal, but when the risk is your child getting molested and not, say, your car getting stolen, it just wouldn't be worth it to me. regardless of if anything ever happened to your son, would you ever really feel safe there? yeah, there's bad people everywhere, but I wouldn't move onto the same block with a known sex offender unless I had access to the case and could see what really happened.

nah, what i can't stomach is a lowered standard of proof combined with a charge that is prejudicial to an accused and the likelihood of conviction being followed by post sentence punishment. But hey, women, cops, and kids... none of them ever lie, right?

I'd also kinda worry about the idea that mitigating circumstances are irrelevant. That also tends only to help the prosecution. Or should the woman who murders her abusive husband be executed as readily as a the one who did it for his insurance money?

No, they're breeding and training grounds for recidivism.

By adding further barriers to post incarceration life, we encourage repeat crime.

If it was self-defense under immediate threat of death or serious injury, it's not murder. If she digs a hole in the woods, sends the kids to grandma's, drugs his drink and dismembers him in his sleep, it's murder, and I do not care what "good reasons" you think she had.

So don't lock up people who aren't dangerous enough to be there, and don't fucking let them out once you have them. There is no scenario where I will allow for devoting resources to making it easier for some shitbag to victimize others, serve an insultingly short sentence, and then have his transition back into society made "easier" at my expense. If you can't function like a civilized human being without so much as one single fucking iota of encouragement or facilitation from anyone, I don't fucking want you living next door to me, I don't want you working for me or being my boss, and I don't want you as a customer in my establishment.

that's nice... anyone the state decides is guilty based on whatever evidence the police provide should be locked up for life?

dude, why not just dispense with trials altogether?

14th Doctor would have loved this thread.

I get where Albert's coming from...if someone can't be rehabilitated, they should stay in prison or otherwise locked away from society. The rate of repeat offenses with child molestation speaks for itself.

To get back to Anc's original question, pretty much every neighborhood you move in is gonna have at least one. The best you can do is teach your kid to be vigilant.

Yes, I know you are an apologistic sympathizer for criminal shitbags, and believe society owes everyone a second chance. Tough shit. If it were up to me, I would consider fewer things "crimes," but I would be far less tolerant and forgiving of those crimes I do recognize.

So to clear things up, sex crimes should carry an asterisk/disclaimer.
If all they did was piss in the woods and Girl Scouts came around the corner and saw him, state that.

If they had sex with a ten year old and they were 30, state that.

Sex offender is a HUUUUUUUUGE umbrella.

That said, every judge who releases rapists/child molestors? Their kids/grandchildren spend time alone unsupervised with said "rehabilitated" molestor just to make sure they will behave themselves. If the judge (or other approving authority) isn't willing to do that, back in the hoosgow with the molestor.

Of course leaving the court room in a body bag once the jury says "guilty" would nip it all in the bud. Not too many people rape from beyond the grave.

IMO they shouldn't bother with a sex offender registry, simply because the only people who deserve to be on it should be kept in jail and never released. What they did ruined the kid's life, so I don't see why they shouldn't suffer for the rest of their lives, too.

If the person is dangerous, he should remain locked up. If he's no longer dangerous, he should be released without having to wear a scarlet letter.

This sentiment is laudable, but the "danger" someone presents doesn't always correlate with the crimes they've committed...

Perhaps not, but the state can only take action where there is credible evidence a crime has been committed. If the state won't take action against my neighbor, I'm not really justified in doing so just because I think he might be dangerous.

Of course, if he actually threatens me or mine, that's another matter...

Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Kim Jong Il agree!

cool, we're both apologist shitbags according to UA!