well, if anyone read what I had originally wrote, forgive me, I didn't realize the difference between a sex offender and a sexual predator.
well, if anyone read what I had originally wrote, forgive me, I didn't realize the difference between a sex offender and a sexual predator.
Last edited by HoneyHITZ; 05-01-2005 at 11:37 AM. Reason: Im kinda dumb...
<Rhiannon_SW> :that's where Jimmy Hoffa went!* Rhiannon_SW gasps.
it's a better solution to what i think should happen to sexual preditors/serial rapists...which is castration
hey..when you go around molesting and fucking children...and raping women...then you just fucked your own life...and everyone should know what you did...for their own safety...
inmates would take care of the situation permanently...this is a better solution than that as well...
but... on the flip side...i can see judges (and others) going overboard with this...like trying to make it legal to flag people with alternative lifestyles...just because they don't approve...
why do some people still have to fight to get the same opportunities that are given to others?
reclusiveness...is a good thing.
the greatest revenge in the world...is success.
Wrong as in a LOT of men being let out of prison after DNA tests, unavailable at the time of their cases, PROVE them to have been incarcerated and ripped from the streets and their family's in error.Originally Posted by Rhiannon
If we were out amputating various body parts - and lets be serious that casteration is a form of amputation - and then what do we say "Ooops. Sorry about that. Well, at least your free even if we did hack away at your genitals."
(And what is it about America and the desire to mutilate men's genitals. It is just a given - from birth - that we accept the mutilation of men's genitals in this culture. We cut away at the penises of innocent babies and then everyone wonder's why men are concerned about the length of their penises and the preponderance of sexual violence in America.)
And I have to disagree that it is solely up to the prisoner to clear their name. If the system is broke, then the system needs a manner of fixing it's self. This is the purpose of appeals - but there have been instances of appeals - the cases escape my memory right now - where DNA evidence clearly shows innocence and yet they are still ground up by the system.





I don't think is right for them to be singled out like that. Yes most of them have done something very wrong but they don't deserve to have a banner showing everyone so they can be judged. I know a guy that when he was 18 and his girlfriend was 17 got caught having (safe) sex by her dad and he pressed charges and is on that list. They are married now with kids. Is it right for him to have a sign on his back pointing him out to the world that he is a "Sexual Predator" or so says the system? I know his case is a small % but he would be under this new rule and would be seen, in the eyes of people who don't know what really happend, as a very sick and bad person. The system needs changed for that very small % of people.
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
Well, I've only heard of a very few cases where offenders have been proven innocent after DNA tests were performed after many years. So, if there are that many more on the books, I'd like to see some documentation.
I'd also like to state that I do not believe the castration in the answer. For a lot of offenders, it's not about sex at all. It's about power. It's about having power over someone who can't defend themselves against you. It's not about sexual gratification. They do it because they can. So castration wouldn't stop them from having the feelings to begin with.
I don't know why you brought up "hacking away at babies' penises". Are you referring to circumcision? How does this have anything at all to do with the topic at hand? I've never heard of a sexual offender standing up in court and saying "Your Honor, I did this because I was circumcized and I feel that I have a small penis because of it." There are reasons for circumcision, whether you agree with them or not. There are NO reasons for sexual offenses against children.
I'll give you the fact that sometimes the system's messed up. I agree. But there are very rare cases where the accused is actually innocent and doesn't deserve what punishment is given to them. Again, ask any offender/past offender/whatever, they'll tell you that the system fucked them over. For the very few who are actually innocent of the charges, I agree that the system needs to be changed for them, and them only.
Criminals however, deserve punishment. Punishment even more severe than they are given.
In the end, I feel one way, and you feel one way. I'm voicing my opinion, you're voicing yours. Neither one of us will get the other to think the same way.
In your friend's case, the system was wrong. The sex was consensual and I don't believe that he should have to pay for it for the rest of his life. Statutory rape claims are far different than what I'm referring to. In most of those cases, parents just can't accept that their children are willingly sexually active, and want to punish someone else for it.
Originally Posted by Rhiannon
A well informed response to the reality of things.I'd also like to state that I do not believe the castration in the answer. For a lot of offenders, it's not about sex at all. It's about power. It's about having power over someone who can't defend themselves against you. It's not about sexual gratification. They do it because they can. So castration wouldn't stop them from having the feelings to begin with.
I agree it is not a reason for sexual offenses.I don't know why you brought up "hacking away at babies' penises". Are you referring to circumcision? How does this have anything at all to do with the topic at hand? I've never heard of a sexual offender standing up in court and saying "Your Honor, I did this because I was circumcized and I feel that I have a small penis because of it." There are reasons for circumcision, whether you agree with them or not. There are NO reasons for sexual offenses against children.
It was an aside, a side-bar to the main text of my response, that there is an acceptance of male genital mutilation in this country - and perhaps that is where the "cut their balls off!" mentality comes from. We don't say that about thieves, forgery, or even murderers (though we do tend to say "fry em!" I will give that point up.)
I agree, criminals deserve punishment & rehabilitation. I am willing to go for a two strikes law for sex offenders, based on the severity of their crime. Aggravated Rape and the like means being locked up for decades at a time in my view.Criminals however, deserve punishment. Punishment even more severe than they are given.
Not if we nag at each other enoughIn the end, I feel one way, and you feel one way. I'm voicing my opinion, you're voicing yours. Neither one of us will get the other to think the same way.
Bid Daddy's friend, not mine.In your friend's case, the system was wrong. The sex was consensual and I don't believe that he should have to pay for it for the rest of his life. Statutory rape claims are far different than what I'm referring to. In most of those cases, parents just can't accept that their children are willingly sexually active, and want to punish someone else for it.
Heh.. You're too much, Babes.Originally Posted by Deogol
LOL For some reason, I thought that Big Daddy had made both posts I was responding to. Sorry about that. I've been cleaning pretty much all day and I think I've sucked in too many cleaning fumes.. Ugh!Bid Daddy's friend, not mine.





Rhi,I've been doing the same thing today.Cleaning up and checking back on SW every now and then.
One of woman's cardinal rule: Body parts can be fake,everything else has to be real.
一个女人的枢机规则:肢体可以伪造,一切必须真实.
中国大CHINESE BIG BOOBS!!!中国大
Drunk party, and people jump naked into the hottub. Incidental contact happens against breasts and/or genitals. Sexual assault charges are filed.
College guy has sex with college girl. College girl two days later reports it as nonconsensual. Sexual assault charges are filed.
Drunk guy tells a bad joke, punctuated with "beeping" a girl's breast. Sexual assualt charges are filed.
By statute in any number of states, these are convictable sexual assault charges that are the result of sexual predation. In any number of states, these offenses are subject to long-term or lifetime registration as a sex offender.
I know the response: "These are not the pedophilic things we're talking about, and it's not comparable." What I'm saying: If you're going to be barbaric in how you treat criminals - and I realize the rationale for doing so - then be sure where you draw the line. The worse you treat the convicted criminal, the higher chance you have of having punishment out of proportion to the crime, the more leverage you give to prosecutors to overcharge, and the higher taint that the government has when the inevitable wrongful conviction occurs.
I'm in favor of dismembering people who sexually prey on small children. That's pretty clearcut. I don't feel the same about a 19-year-old and a 16-year-old. Somewhere between those two extremes is a line. A big, wide, fuzzy line.
If you want to punish someone for life, then keep them in jail. Don't shave them, tattoo them, brand them, or whatever. If the crime is worth long-term hard punishment, then jail is the choice that society has focused on.




"Peter, did you take Stewie to a strip-club? He smells like sweat and fear." - Lois and Stewie (Family Guy) ... "Through early morning fog I see, Visions of the things to be, The pains that are withheld for me, I realize and I can see..."





Not True ,Originally Posted by MojoJojo
--Sexual battery upon person 12 years of age or older without victim’s consent when victim is physically helpless to resist, when victim is coerced by threat of force or violence and victim reasonably believes the offender has ability to execute the threat (first degree felony);
Ugh.. It sucks, doesn't it, Hon.. LOLOriginally Posted by onlythebest
I've been tackling the closets, dusting, organizing, scrubbing floors. They didn't do much of a cleaning job before we moved in. Gah. I can't breathe through my nose very well from all the dust, but damn do I have one hell of a buzz going on.. Hahahaha
(Sorry about the Off-Topic, folks. I'll take my spankings later!)
Wiseguy.. You totally rock! This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!Originally Posted by WiseGuy_TX





I agree with you on dividing the law or punishment from one offense to another they really have lumped together many offenders into one class of felones.Small children should have there own set of punishments in my opinion.Most of my hate was or is focused on those who target small children . But we cant take way from the other type of sexual misconduct charges they are not to be ignored its got to be such a helpless feeling for the victims . I do however make this promise that if anyone in my family is ever a victim of this type of crime no trial date will need to be set.David Copperfield could not top the dissappearing act I would perform upon them .Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
Personally, I think this is where the jury should be allowed some descretion in sentencing. Most people would certainly make a distinction between two teens (albeit one legally an adult) having sex, and a pedophile preying on an kid walking home from school.Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Generally, that is a choice that the jury has. They're called "lesser included offenses," at least in some jurisdictions. However, the prosecuting attorney has the option of charging the alleged sexual offender with the worst possible crime, so that is the risk that our hypothetical 19-year-old takes in going to trial - that he could be branded a predatory sexual offender for life, for consensual boinking with a 16-year-old. That's the way the system is now. Yeah, the jury has the choice, and the alleged 19-year-old offender has the risk of getting a punishment that many might agree is out of proportion to the alleged crime.Originally Posted by Destiny
Folks up here may remember Guy Paul Morin who was convicted for raping and murdering a 9 year old girl. Turns out (14 years later) that he didn't do it. The thing is, that at the time everyone was SO SURE that he did it. Finding out that he was definitively innocent was like finding out that Paul Bernardo is innocent, or that Jeffery Dalmer was innocent (not in terms of parallel evidence, just in terms of that is HOW SURE everyone was that he was guilty). It was shocking and led to a massive investigation of the processing of evidence in the entire province. Saying that that 14 years of his life, not to mention the stress and trauma of being branded a baby killer, not just for him but his entire family is his problem is beyond insenstive.Originally Posted by Rhiannon
Besides that - the criminal justice system is simply not set up like that. If you want guilt until proven innocence then you want a police state. We have those, if that is the way you want to live your life. If you are interested in the sanctity of individual right and a justice system that respects them you are sort of stuck with the idea of rehabilitation and forgiveness. I respect that many people would want to kill anyone who hurt their children - but children are fairly notorious for misidentifying their attackers (in case, god forbid, it would ever come up) and that is precisely why victims don't get to sentence criminals.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
Originally Posted by Jenny
I read up on the Guy Morin case now that you have made me aware of it.
Reminds me of the "Satanic Ritual" hysteria that was washing across the US (a little gift from the Moral Majority's mind set) in which dozens of people were accused of being secret satanists and abusing little children (Think the McMartin Pre-school.)
Looks like my points were already covered quite well. But just to clarify, what I mean is "wrong" in the way of conviction.Originally Posted by Rhiannon
I just really think we need to have a better track record with conviction before we mark people for public stonings.
"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind."
-Humphrey Bogart
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
-Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
-His reply
"If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs."
-David Daye
Bookmarks