It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Sex Offenders Violated for Reading in Florida

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
My opinion is that we have some pretty clear cut guidlines as to what is pornography and what is not.

Tow people nude engaged in any sexual act where gentalia is visible is pornography.

Scantily glad women, reviews on tech gear and clothing, and 50 pages of advertisments is not.

It may offend some people but hey, its not illegal and not pornography.

I could see these regulation applying to real porn for these offenders but newstand magazines hardly meet that criteria. I mean, could the JC Penny catalog not be considered as pornography if that were the case?

In my opinion, any person like this who buys Maxim is merely trying to regain some bit of normalization.




posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Hmm, will they enforce this rule upon determining that a person posesses a Bible? There are tons of sexual stories in those pages, including incest, masturbation (with dildoes, even), and lots of "going in unto" and "knowing." Additionally, there are several instances in the Bible wherein people are put to death as a result of a sexual encounter. It mixes sex and crime very often, in my estimation.

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Zip

EDIT Perhaps sexual criminals and predators would do well to stay away from Bibles, given the following passages about slaying enemies and cutting off their foreskins,

1Sa 18:25 And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

1Sa 18:26 And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law: and the days were not expired.

1Sa 18:27 Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.


[edit on 7/19/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Hey Zip, go back and read my original post man.. a few people were arrested for reading quotes out of the bible already. They may have or have gotten about 47 yrs in jail for it.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Sory, jumped the gun coz I don't have much time this afternoon.

I'll check it out.

Zip



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Delta 38
Personally I think Child Molesters and rapists (not including statutory rape) should go to jail and stay there. They are to dangerous to be let back in to society. Child porn is child explotation. It should be illegal an while there should be some type of penalty for possessing it the real punishment should be for those who produce and sell it.
there is no cure for these sex offenders going to jail makes them worse in most cases.we need something better but I do'nt know what.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by websurfer

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It's not really, but that's irrelevant. My question is this: Where to draw the line?


If the man in question was your next door neighbour how would your question change?

[edit on 7-19-2005 by websurfer]


It would not change my opinions or ideas I put forth.

edit for typo

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Red Golem]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Ok Red Golem, let me ask you a question, if we can find one of these predators that are coming up for parole, would you be willing to rent this guy a room in your house?

I hope you don't have a wife/kids.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
websurfer
My question doesn't change in the least. The chances of a sexual predator choosing a 6'5" 330lb male as his target du jour are slim to none.
And if I had kids my answer would STILL remain the same. Know why? I intend to WATCH my children and protect them from the sickos and psychos of the world. Unlike so many parents, I consider parenting a full time job and a lifestyle, not an annoying distraction from cable.


Zipdot
It appears the visual images are what they're going after.

Intrepid
I'm not sure that we should go there, as much as most of America would surely love to. That sort of thinking, "Don't like 'em, kill 'em!" is probably not sustainable in a law-abiding society. As much as everyone would love to make exceptions in our hatred for eugenics and murder, just for these folks, it isn't right, and most of us know that deep down inside.

I think exile is the answer. Let the predator learn what it means to be at the mercy of nature. And this way we don't set the 'moral' precedent that killing is the right way to solve your problems.

I'm not some bleeding heart liberal, but I do think there is a time for restraint. Never kill a man you don't HAVE to, because killing is too damn easy, and you're the one who has to live with it for the rest of your life.

People think it's hard to pull the trigger and easy to get over it. It's just the opposite.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Intrepid
I'm not sure that we should go there, as much as most of America would surely love to. That sort of thinking, "Don't like 'em, kill 'em!" is probably not sustainable in a law-abiding society. As much as everyone would love to make exceptions in our hatred for eugenics and murder, just for these folks, it isn't right, and most of us know that deep down inside.

I think exile is the answer. Let the predator learn what it means to be at the mercy of nature. And this way we don't set the 'moral' precedent that killing is the right way to solve your problems.

I'm not some bleeding heart liberal, but I do think there is a time for restraint. Never kill a man you don't HAVE to, because killing is too damn easy, and you're the one who has to live with it for the rest of your life.

People think it's hard to pull the trigger and easy to get over it. It's just the opposite.


I'm glad that you are the parent that you are, kindred spirits you and I. Personally I would rest easier knowing that this was in place. I would throw the switch myself and not have the least bit of remorse. The key to this is that they cannot be rehabillitated. It's not that I don't like them, I'm thinking of the future victims. It's not about revenge either, this is pragmatic. I'm not talking about a guy that makes a HUGE mistake, I'm talking about the predators/pedophiles.

My question stands, would you have them in your house?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
My question stands, would you have them in your house?

If I could answer that question for a moment. I wouldnt even let a convicted burgular into my home, that doesnt mean I want to see them with a bullet in their head.

If sexual predators cannot be rehabilitated then the same logic applies to all criminals. If they cross the red line from contemplation to commiting a crime then just exactly what makes you sure any criminal will rehabilitate?

I understand that the rights of paedophiles are superceeded by the rights of our children. They are priority number one, I dont think ANYONE would argue otherwise. Perhaps we should increase the jail time for child molestation to life in prison. That way this argument is moot.

At the same time we should actively fund research into why people do this. If we later find out ways and means of treating these people, with aims to rehabilitation, then we owe it them to do so.

[edit on 19/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
More important than branding someone as a "sex offender" is what they have actually done. I read about a case in Chicago where a 14-year-old girl ran in front of a guy's car, the guy was maybe 26 or so. The guy slams on his brakes and the girl stands there in shock. The guy gets out somewhat angry telling the girl how dangerous she was being. The girl tried to run away while the guy was lecturing her, so the guy grabbed her arm trying to explain how dangerous it was to run through the streets like that.

So, while it may not have been a bright idea to grab the girl's arm, the guy was brought to court and charged as a sex offender. I'm not sure of the exact charge, but it was something like detaining a minor forcefully or something like that. Now this guy has to go through his life branded as a sex offender, registering wherever he may decide to move.

It's obvious that this whole "sex offender" branding is not justice just by this story and similar stories alone. Generalities like these bring about stereotypes towards individuals that may not necessarily be true. Instead, one must look at a case by case basis or make generalities on a more specific scale, like rape. But, even cases of rape can be circumstantial in cases of statutory rape, where an 18-year-old may have sex with a 17-year-old.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Intrepid
I haven't seen any proof that sex offenders can never be rehabilitated. What they lack is impulse control.

Look, this may be horrible to say, but if you're willing to kill them like dogs, are you willing to train them like dogs?

I haven't seen anything saying sex offenders can't learn impulse control, like any other creature. That's definitely their problem, it's not like they're not human, they're running the exact same software everybody else is, they just choose to adhere to their instincts instead of their societal acceptance routine in that instance.

The thing is, society has rules, like any household. If the people in society break those rules, they have to be punished. I'm sure we agree there.

So the question is, punish in what way? If the person is dangerous, you've got to keep them away from society until they're no longer dangerous. If they can't be trained to respect the laws and norms of society, they have to be kept away from society forever. Kill 'em or throw them out? I'll tell you which is cheaper, at least under current law, the latter.

The burdensome legal system in America is a huge problem, that makes handling other problems MORE difficult, not less.

My opinion is that we should make society paradise, and if someone doesn't want to adhere to the rules, we kick them out.


I'm a sucker for tried and true methods.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I understand what you're saying subz but this is just another NIMBY(Not In My Back Yard). People have their conscience as long as it's not MINE that get hurt. Even if it isn't yours it's someone elses. The future victims still suffer. For those that can't deal with it, for life, or death. We put to death serial murderers, they take lives, do you think that serial rapists and pedophiles do less? I think they do more because the victims have a life sentance themselves.

Besides, as I've shown, they CANNOT be cured. I see this as a basic mathimatical equation. No cure + WILL get out = more victims. Only one solution imo.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Ok Red Golem, let me ask you a question, if we can find one of these predators that are coming up for parole, would you be willing to rent this guy a room in your house?

I hope you don't have a wife/kids.


The best anser that I think I can give to that question is if I were in the bunsiss of renting rooms, I would consided the aplacation the same as I would any other.
Although that is a bit off topic though. The topic is putting the sex criminal in jail for haveing sex related materal.
I am gathering that you agree with this, if that is the case I will repeat what I said earlier, you should read Farenheight 451.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Recidivism certainly is a problem, but as I said before, I've seen no evidence speaking to the fact that sexual predators can't be rehabilitated.

You know the phrase "In a neighborhood where everyone locks their door, there is no theft", doesn't that somewhat apply here.

If there weren't a million unsupervised children running around every corner of every state, maybe sexual predators would be less successful. This isn't blaming the victim, this is suggesting to the victim a way to reduce the chances of victimization. You can't put 'em in prison until they've done something anyway, so at least one kid is gonna get victimized before each and every new offender gets caught.

It makes sense to me that we should do everything possible to protect ourselves and our families, and not give child molesters a first chance at harming our kids.

Then, when we catch them, we should do our best to understand the individual's reasons, decide if they can be cured, and if they can't, throw 'em out. I don't care if you give them a raft and a paddle, or a way one ticket to antarctica, or a pamphlet on how to sneak into mexico along with the helpful prodding of a bayonet in the small of their back.

Doesn't matter really. You could even create an offshore platform called sickos island. Put all the sickos there. Standard issue gear is one set of clothing, one fishing rod, one spool of line, one hook, and a filet knife for whittling away calluses to use as bait.

If we're going to kill them, the legal system must change. It costs more to kill them under current law! But then you start taking away layers of redundant protection to help innocent people escape death...

So that has to be considered as well...

What about those people who are innocent? Does our system do enough to protect their rights, considering the social stigma we have against their kind?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
So, while it may not have been a bright idea to grab the girl's arm, the guy was brought to court and charged as a sex offender. I'm not sure of the exact charge, but it was something like detaining a minor forcefully or something like that. Now this guy has to go through his life branded as a sex offender, registering wherever he may decide to move.


Damn, I've got to open another window for this one.

Jam, check out my previous post, I'm talking about predators/pedophiles. Not some guy who made a mistake.


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I haven't seen anything saying sex offenders can't learn impulse control, like any other creature. That's definitely their problem, it's not like they're not human, they're running the exact same software everybody else is, they just choose to adhere to their instincts instead of their societal acceptance routine in that instance.


This the flaw in your logic. No they aren't. You see a child, you smile, think of your own child. A pedophile sees a target. Something he can attack and use. If he doesn't kill the child, he/she has a life of pain.


So the question is, punish in what way? If the person is dangerous, you've got to keep them away from society until they're no longer dangerous.


Couldn't agree with you more, proves my point actually, they will no longer be dangerous when they are dead.


If they can't be trained to respect the laws and norms of society, they have to be kept away from society forever. Kill 'em or throw them out? I'll tell you which is cheaper, at least under current law, the latter.


Sorry, don't get this one. What price are we talking about here? Dollars or ruined lives? BTW, there are a lot of dollars spent at phycotherapists because of ruined lives, so it could be the same.


Originally posted by Red Golem
The best anser that I think I can give to that question is if I were in the bunsiss of renting rooms, I would consided the aplacation the same as I would any other.
Although that is a bit off topic though. The topic is putting the sex criminal in jail for haveing sex related materal.
I am gathering that you agree with this, if that is the case I will repeat what I said earlier, you should read Farenheight 451.


I can only infer from this that you are single and without kids. NO parent would put his family in harms way for an ideal.

Ideals are fine folks but the plight of future victims is WAY more important than the lives of these monsters and some consciences.

Sorry for taking so much time but there were a lot of people to answer.

Edit: To add: I read Kurt's book almost 30 years ago.
Were you alive then.


[edit on 19-7-2005 by intrepid]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I understand what you are saying Intrepid. I dont have kids myself but ive got young nephews and nieces that I adore with all my heart. If anything happend to them I would literally be baying for blood.

But therein lies the rub, our judiciary is designed specifically without passion and interest. The majority of the world's societies agree that no crime warrants the death penalty, and for those countries that do allow capital punishment it only applies to some murderers. If we allowed those whom are directly affected by a crime to be judge, jury and executioner we could expect regular capital punishment for robbery upwards. Those who have been robbed can attest how it ruins your life. Should we execute all theives?

This is why you get people holding on to ideals when they would never tolerate a paedophile in their own neighbourhood. Its the nature of our judiciary to hold the law in higher regard when compared to our feelings. We shouldnt allow those directly affected by a crime or even those who are threatend by it to dish out our laws.

[edit on 19/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I don't know subz...

Certainly I agree with you if we decide we want an impartial justice system.

However, there is a psychological detterence factor in allowing victims to pick the sentence, and a very real sense of justice held by those who suffered.

It might not be fair, but it might indeed be RIGHT.

I'm not sure though, it's a sensitive topic, and many people would be real bastards when assigning punishment for minor crimes. Maybe it should be a special case for those who have lost children or loved ones? Actually GIVE them the defendants life, and let them decide what to do with it.

Many other cultures have used that model successfully, I believe.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
If we allowed those whom are directly affected by a crime to be judge, jury and executioner we could expect regular capital punishment for robbery upwards. Those who have been robbed can attest how it ruins your life. Should we execute all theives?


I don't think I even came close to saying execute theives. I'm not talking about people that take property, I'm talking about monsters that make peoples lives a living hell. Literally. It's a pain that I don't understand, you can't understand, unless you've been through it. If a person experiences this type of invasion and survives, they suffer with it for the rest of their lives.

I think our high ideals dwindle compared to the suffering of the victims AND future victims.

Am I not making sense? I don't see the probem here.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
It does make sense Intrepid, that's sort of the problem.

It's an admittedly effective solution at punishing offenders.

But it does nothing to stop the problem.

I think we really need to do extensive studies and figure out just what isn't clicking about not molesting kids. It seems simple enough to 90% of people.

I maintain they're just using the same mate selection software as everyone else, but there's something else going on too, maybe something to do with failed societal interactions, failed inter-personal relationships, or an inability to regulate impulses.

Whatever it is, we should find it and figure out some way of treating it.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join