I have no sympathy for sex offenders. Though in this particular case, seeing as he married the woman, if she can attest it was consensual, i dont see the problem.
Poll: Sex Offender Registries, Out of Control.
- Thread starter tkioz
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I guess he could take the case to court. With a good lawyer and a fair judge your mate should be able to keep off the register.
Laws surrounding statutory rape vary from state to state but it's typically either over the age of 18, or no more than 2 years older / younger.
At a certain point you have to accept that kids are going to be kids, and whether you like it or not, you're going to face the fact that you're going to deal with the two different groups of people having sex you never want to think about: Your parents, and your kids.
Just the same, people do stupid crap. I don't see why people should have their whole life defined by the fact that they couldn't keep their pants on when they were young and hormonal. It's more or less instinctual that they *cough* find some tail.
Just the same I think the proverbial pedo bear should be castrated, but that's just me.
At a certain point you have to accept that kids are going to be kids, and whether you like it or not, you're going to face the fact that you're going to deal with the two different groups of people having sex you never want to think about: Your parents, and your kids.
Just the same, people do stupid crap. I don't see why people should have their whole life defined by the fact that they couldn't keep their pants on when they were young and hormonal. It's more or less instinctual that they *cough* find some tail.
Just the same I think the proverbial pedo bear should be castrated, but that's just me.
I know what it is now, 16 if the person is within an age group, 18 and its free for all, but this was 30 years ago so I have zero clue about how it should be handled.ad5x5 said:
Hell by the reasoning used, I'm the product of statutory rape I think, my monther had just turned 18 when I was born and my father was 20, they were married a few months before my birth, so... yea... wonder if my dad should be placed on the offenders list? oh wait my maternal grandfather wasn't a twat.
Part of my indignation is on behalf of a pair of friends who are under going a time of extreme stress due an issue they thought long forgotten, but another part is that it actually devalues the registry as a resource, if someone is on that list you should know that he is scum by dint of being on it, knowing that you can get on it for stupid reasons just reduces it's effectiveness in my mind.
I have a problem with sex offender registries because they break the "innocent until proven guilty rule". In most cases you just need to be charged to be listed, even if the charge is totally unfounded and is thrown out of court for lack of evidence you're still branded for life as a "sex offender". It's just insane. The vast majority of people on "sex offender" lists aren't sex offenders at all, they were never proven guilty so they're innocent.
I know there may be people out there who disagree with me and will say that criminals get off on technicalities or because sexual offenses usually don't generate sufficient witnesses to get a conviction, but if someone can get away with murder for that reason and walk out a free man then surely the same rules should apply to everyone else?
If one starts to place anyone accused of murder on a "murderer list" then you might as well throw due process out the window and just move to a position of "guilty until proven innocent", like it is in Japan.
One final thought. Sex offender lists are popularly supported by the contention that sex offenders have a higher re-offense rate (recidivism rate) than other crimes. The opposite is in fact true.
I know there may be people out there who disagree with me and will say that criminals get off on technicalities or because sexual offenses usually don't generate sufficient witnesses to get a conviction, but if someone can get away with murder for that reason and walk out a free man then surely the same rules should apply to everyone else?
If one starts to place anyone accused of murder on a "murderer list" then you might as well throw due process out the window and just move to a position of "guilty until proven innocent", like it is in Japan.
One final thought. Sex offender lists are popularly supported by the contention that sex offenders have a higher re-offense rate (recidivism rate) than other crimes. The opposite is in fact true.
Ditto this.Frungy said:
Due process is there for a reason, and the reason is not to protect guilty people from retribution but to protect innocent people from having their lives completely ruined. This case highlights the hysteria regarding sex offences that is now rampant in the western world, stoked up by tabloids and those appauling shows like "To Catch a Predator".
On the one hand what he did is considered wrong, on the other hand it was over thirty years ago.
In my opinion I say don't put him on the list. He has been married to the woman for over thirty years and I don't see a reason to put his name on the list now.
In my opinion I say don't put him on the list. He has been married to the woman for over thirty years and I don't see a reason to put his name on the list now.
There is generally some leeway if they have 6 months to go until they are 18, unless you get a cop who has had a bad day and decides to take it out on you.Spektre41 said:
As for the Sex Offenders registry, keep it for those who crimes actually contain some form of sexual misconduct. Topless sunbathing or public urination shouldnt be included, they aren't here in Australia. Just fineable offenses but you usually get off with a warning first, unless you have the afore mentioned cop.
That would be a line delivered by Samuel Jackson in the movie "A Time to Kill".sheppard419 said:
In terms of the sex offender register it feels like on paper it is a good thing but I would guess that most of us are picturing child molesters who I believe to be inherently cunning and devious and prone to recidivism. But then I consider child molestation to be a crime second only to murder and would not want them freed so registering them becomes moot.
It seems impossible these days to draft a piece of legislation (like a register) and not allow room for simple common sense. Is the OPs friend a predator? No. Should he have waited until she was old enough? Well...yes (and let that be a lesson to everyone..keep it zipped or your life gets fucked up for good). But that is water under the bridge and time passing with no further offences should (in my mind) remove a person from a register.
Worse than that, I was at my local police station the other day and I came to find that the sex offender reporting forms were right there in the lobby. I could have signed up half the town to be placed on the list, totally anonymously. Is that crazy or what?BrynThomas said:
Exactly. That's what I always say when stuff like this comes up. If they're that much of a danger that they need to be on a list and constantly informing the public about their existence and location, why are they out on the streets? Or, if they're safe to let out, why are we completely ruining the rest of their lives and any chance of redemption/reform afterward by doing things to them we don't do to other criminals? You don't get to have it both ways.Housebroken Lunatic said:
The really bizarre part is that they have a significantly lower repeat offense rate on average than most types of criminals, but they're given the least chance at rehabilitation. It's one of those things that seems to be driven by emotions and not by any sort of logic. Sure, they did bad things, but so do other types of criminals, and we don't have the same kind of reaction to them.
The punishment for crimes is supposed to be fair and proportional, not "we need to publicly burn you alive at the stake because I'm particularly squicked by this type of crime", or it tends to reduce people's trust and acceptance of the justice system, just like the multi-million dollar fines for downloading a few MP3s.
The registers are not in themselves fair, though I don't get why they can't just be tied in to your criminal record and instead have there own version.
What is fucking outrageous is how bloody easily the public can get access to them. What the hell happened to peoples right to their own damned past?
And dont give me the "To protect the children!" excuse. Any employer is able to run a confidential check (and in most countries is required too) if someone wishes to work with kids
What is fucking outrageous is how bloody easily the public can get access to them. What the hell happened to peoples right to their own damned past?
And dont give me the "To protect the children!" excuse. Any employer is able to run a confidential check (and in most countries is required too) if someone wishes to work with kids