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: California Law Would Require Lifetime Tracking Devices For Sex Offenders

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Amuk, I may be mistaken, but I thought I heard you claim to be a libertarian in the past. .


I am but how does this excuse the fact the people thought they were going to have sex with a 10 year-old? Are they just "Claiming" the freak showed up to get the bait?

The bottom line is the pervert was planning on having sex with a child. Showed up with the intentions of raping a child and he got busted......BOO HOO


[edit on 18-8-2005 by Amuk]




posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Did I say anything about baby rapests?

Nope.

You and I both know that they would put those people or that type of crime away for life or a death sentence. Any crime that involves a victom I don't have remorse for that person at commetted the crime.

What Iam saying here IS that if one state starts it out then you have the whole US going for it. From this I can see other states getting involved and putting crimes that have no means being bunched up with this type of crime.

What better testing ground then LA. one of the US's worst crime rates.

Listen Iam not here trying to start a fight. What I am trying to do is to open the eyes of the public on what kind of action a state could take.
I mean what else does the government want from us. We already gave up our civil rights in the Patriot Act 1 and if 2 passes then you might as well get the chip in you because they have made a data base which tracks all of the actions you do.
O yeah I forgot to mention another thing the government is tracking right now. Our kids. Yep, that is right anyone that is 13 to 18 right now the government is tracking the grades, spending habits, and IQ. Why, you might ask? Well, lets just say that they want to make sure they "PREY" on the not so bright ones to recruit for the military. If you don't believe me fine. But mark my words when they come-a-knocking at your door asking for "Jane" to sign up or heck they might not even do that. Since our civil rights are gone why not just do a draft, that much easier and not so much of a mess.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by texmiller
Did I say anything about baby rapests?

Nope.


Yep



Originally posted by texmiller
Punishment yes, but not to the extent that if affects the lively hood of thier family, friends, etc... for the rest of thier life, that is to far.

Just think if they can do this to sex offenders then what is stopping them from traffic tickets, dwi's, parking tickets, toll runners, jay walking, stealing, murder, drug users, drug abusers, alcoholics.

Really, take a set, think about what you people are voting on. Put yourself in the crimials family eyes, or better yet put them in the crimials eyes. See how your life would be. Then vote.


Who are these people if not the baby rapists? That is after all the topic of the thread, right?

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
O no, don't get me started on internet entrapment. Did you know that now most states have a law that has been passed that states that anyone 17 or older that talks to a "minor" in a lude, swearing, etc way that they will be classified as a sex offender.

That is a topic on itself.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
This bill is WAAAAY past due. Tracking these predators may not be 100% effective in preventing repeat offenses, but I think I know what would be effective.

Givng these people (if you want to call them that) a permanent tattoo on their forehead would be the key.

A big, bright red letter. Remember 'The Scarlet Letter'? Only this would be non- removable and children should be taught what this letter means.

Anyhow, it's about time. The rest of the nation should follw California's example. Fast.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by texmiller
Did you know that now most states have a law that has been passed that states that anyone 17 or older that talks to a "minor" in a lude, swearing, etc way that they will be classified as a sex offender.


so you are upset that you cant talk dirty to a 14 year-old?

Why?



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I am done talking and I know that you will keep on going all day but I have to go.

My last words would have to be that people of this nature or crime should be given a chance to redim themselves and not wear a tracking device.

People that commett a SERIOUS sex crime like, rape, murder, etc should be.

Many people get caught up in this topic "sex offender" because they don't know what definds a sex offender.
Many people have explained already that most are innocent anyway.

The government is on an internet entrapment high which is sad that they have to commit to making crimes up to arrest people. Or the fact that WE as tax payers are paying for cops to talk dirty to people all day.

And for those people that think this is a good idea lets have a testing period of a year..... o no how about 5 years of having them being tracked and see what people think. Then, you might have a different opinion.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Amuk,


No I am not stating that at all.

Its called freedom of speech. If that still exsists.

Bye bye.


(Mod edit: Insults will not be tolerated on ATSNN)


[edit on 18-8-2005 by asala]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by texmiller
Really, take a set, think about what you people are voting on. Put yourself in the crimials family eyes, or better yet put them in the crimials eyes. See how your life would be. Then vote.


So the rights of the criminals themselves take priority over the rights of the victems? I fail to see how keeping tabs on criminals that have a high potential for doing harm is in any way big brotherish. Esp. factoring in the heinous nature of the crime. No are you asking law abiding citizens to surrender thier rights in any way. Yeah thier life should be crummy and let me tell you communities in the SF Bay Area are activly driving many of these predators out of thier communities.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Givng these people (if you want to call them that) a permanent tattoo on their forehead would be the key.

A big, bright red letter. Remember 'The Scarlet Letter'? Only this would be non- removable and children should be taught what this letter means.


Branding didn't work to deter other thieves/cattle hustlers/miscreants from doing their crimes...it only made 'em more determined not to get caught.

It's not going to stop the next batch of child molestors, either.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Makes me proud I voted for the Governator!

I am registered to vote in California and I would support this 100%, mainly for reasons already mentioned(recidivism rate etc. etc). I especially like mr.jones ideas on pg 2 as well.

All I know is-If someone hurt my kid, they better pray they get arrested before I get to them, even then that would only grant them a stay.

[edit on 18-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]


df1

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by df1
Amuk, I may be mistaken, but I thought I heard you claim to be a libertarian in the past. .

I am but how does this excuse the fact the people thought they were going to have sex with a 10 year-old? Are they just "Claiming" the freak showed up to get the bait?

We do not know what the government agents said to lure the individual. I'm sure the dialog didnt go, "hi Im 10 years old, meet me at the mall on the bench at the north entrance at 9pm, then we can get a motel and have wild passionate sex. " and guy replied "Great Ive always wanted to do a 10 year old, see you then".

Perhaps the guy showed up to meet what he thought was an adult roleplaying as child. Perverted, yes. A crime, no way.



The bottom line is the pervert was planning on having sex with a child. Showed up with the intentions of raping a child and he got busted......BOO HOO

Perhaps the individual just showed up to look. At lot of men do get their jollys by just looking. And that damn well doesn't make that person a sex offender and I damn well don't want to start chipping people over thought crimes.

And you have not addressed the mental make up government agents that would be willing to do this job. Such individuals are surely as perverted as those they entrap.

Also why is it always males that are picked up. Surely we have some "desperate housewives" that would want to jump in the sack with some sweet young teenage boy.

Its funny that as a libertarian you don't trust the government with your money and you don't trust the government over gun laws, but you are more than willing to trust them on this issue. Unbelievable.

Are you sure that your a libertarian? I don't believe that you qualify.
.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Are you sure that your a libertarian? I don't believe that you qualify.


I will resign right away


So you wouldnt have a problem with a 45 year-old man having your 12 year-old girl meet him for dinner and drinks?

I hope you dont have kids.



Its no wonder we lose more rights everyday with libertarians like you.


So you think you have a right to talk dirty to and try to "pick up" 12 year-olds on the internet?



[edit on 18-8-2005 by Amuk]


df1

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
So you wouldnt have a problem with a 45 year-old man having your 12 year-old girl meet him for dinner and drinks?

This is a strawman. What we have with this entrapment is a 45 year-old man arranging to have dinner and drinks with another 45 year-old man that happens to work for the police. It is unreasonable to charge someone as a child molestor without having a child involved. As it unreasonable for a libertarian to want the government to protect his 12 year-old daughter rather than taking appropriate precautions himself by keeping his daughter off of internet sex rooms.

Should your daughter be molested, I will stand and cheer when you hunt down the SOB with your gun. However I can not applaud people being arrested for thought crimes and a thought crime is exactly what this is until a child is actually molested.

I understand your position and concerns, but we will have to agree to disagree. I am done with topic as I can see that you cannot be swayed by my appeal to the libertarian in you.

The last word is yours.
.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
This is a strawman. What we have with this entrapment is a 45 year-old man arranging to have dinner and drinks with another 45 year-old man that happens to work for the police. It is unreasonable to charge someone as a child molestor without having a child involved.



Wouldn't this fall under "conspiracy to commit..." or "with intent" though?

An act doesn't have to be committed to constitute a criminal offense, correct?



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
As it unreasonable for a libertarian to want the government to protect his 12 year-old daughter rather than taking appropriate precautions himself by keeping his daughter off of internet sex rooms.


I dont expect them to keep my daughter out of internet chat rooms but I DO expect them to arrest those trolling the chat rooms looking for children to molest. I dont see a problem with the two sides.




Should your daughter be molested, I will stand and cheer when you hunt down the SOB with your gun.



We are on the same page here





However I can not applaud people being arrested for thought crimes and a thought crime is exactly what this is until a child is actually molested.


If you are talking about people having stories, art, etc that does not involve real children (no victim) on their computer then I agree.

BUT

When they attempt to contact a "real" person that they believe is a child, then they cross the line IMO.



I understand your position and concerns, but we will have to agree to disagree. I am done with topic as I can see that you cannot be swayed by my appeal to the libertarian in you.

The last word is yours.
.


Word


Thats the beauty of being a Libertarian.......unlike the Republicans or Democrats we CAN disagree and not be burned at the stake



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by texmiller

The government is on an internet entrapment high which is sad that they have to commit to making crimes up to arrest people. Or the fact that WE as tax payers are paying for cops to talk dirty to people all day.



In as much as I very much disagree with you on your opinion about tracking and referencing criminal predators with the holocost, I have to agree with the above statement or a variance thereof anyway.

I understand that we have to plant police officers undercover to catch criminals. However, I think some of these activities actually materialize a crime when no such crime would have taken place had it not been structured. I can see having undercover "Johns" get propostitioned by prostitutes because they must take the first action and be already willing to and looking to committ a crime. However, having an undercover agent actually initialize the crime is going a little too far.

case and point, I had a friend I worked with some years ago go into a beer store and buy beer. he came out, two women pulled up and asked if he would go buy them a 6 pack of Zima since they had been painting and did not want to go into a public place without cleaning up, which they had not had time to do and were not finished painting, just taking a break.

Well, the old boy complied being a good old boy and trying to help a couple very flirty young ladies only to find the police waiting when he came back out. They charged him with contr. to delinq. of minors buy buying beer for two underaged undercover policewomen. Read that last part again folks!

First off, if they were minors, how were they undercover policemen? Second, if they were not undercover policemen then who here really is endangering them? An old boy with his old junk car half apart had walked to the local store to buy a 6 pack of cheap beer before returning to work had now ended up in jail for buying beer for two minors employeed by the police department? He never set out to break the law. There was no criminal intent which we are told must be present for a crime to be committed so what gives?

My reasoning is not that we cannot try to plant undercover agents to catch predators, just that the controls on such operations must maintain a legal and constitutional bounds. If you list yourself as a 15 year old girl and someone propositions you, you bet you should bust them, but the undercover agents cannot be charged with the initiation of a criminal activity if said criminal intent is not present to begin with.

You don't need to waste taxpayer money on a hotel room, degrading a professional police woman by dressing her up like a tramp and have her solicite sex. Get out there and arrest people crawling through people's windows and stealing their stuff. Arrest the people who vandalize private and public property. They do it all everyday in plain sight. Yank the guy off the jogger in the park and haul him to jail. Noooo, we gotta always look just past the nose on our faces and make things as screwed up and complicated as possible.

You can't toss someone an apple and then arrest them for stealing just because they catch it to stop it from hitting the ground. It reminds me of that scene in the movie "Undercover Brother" where Chris Kattan was throwing stuff at UB and yelling Stop! Theif!

I mean Geez o pete, there are no shortages of criminals who openly deny the law that I think would fuel the need for cops out there trying to create crime for job security!

My .02



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Well as far as the internet predators go, where are the parents. Some responsibility does fall on them. I would never allow my child free reign of the internet. There are programs to help with this. Or we would have an agreement and I would have a record of eerywhere they went on the net.

And for the rights of these monsters. If you think tracking there every move would be a violation of their "RIGHTS", why dont you go to the the website for Missing and Exploited children and read some of thieir stories. Then, imagine that being you son, daughter, sister, brother, neice, or nephew. Look at those photos. Read those stories.

I for one think something has got to be done to protect our nations children. I love my country and our freedoms, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon
What about those wrongfully convicted? The error of conviction in cases involving sexual abuse is pretty high and for someone to have to go through a prison sentence for something he/she didn't do, and then this, seems pretty exorbitant. That's why if a law like this comes into passage at all, it should be for those with multiple convictions.

However, even then I think it's an invasion of privacy. These people can start over. Regardless of how much pain their victims suffer/suffered, the goal of the prison system shouldn't be to punish people but rather to change them into good members of society. Punishing is just an expression of emotion that only leads to more pain in the prisoner's life and friend's/family's/ life, but reforming them into good members of society is the logical thing to do.



Well if they have gone through the system, did their time, and are released into the public with this device then they are most likely not "wrongfully convicted." Besides, if their conviction was found to be wrong and is overturned then, duh, the device would be removed. Ok, if you want to give them a chance, then remove the tracker after so many years of not committing an offense. Treat it as part of their parole. If they are rehabilitated then they won't have any reason to worry about it. Remember, their names will already be on a sexual offenders list, so it's not like there is an increased threat of their privacy being exposed to the public. It's not like everyone will have access to the tracking software. And in the end, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by texmiller

The government is on an internet entrapment high which is sad that they have to commit to making crimes up to arrest people. Or the fact that WE as tax payers are paying for cops to talk dirty to people all day.



In as much as I very much disagree with you on your opinion about tracking and referencing criminal predators with the holocost, I have to agree with the above statement or a variance thereof anyway.

I understand that we have to plant police officers undercover to catch criminals. However, I think some of these activities actually materialize a crime when no such crime would have taken place had it not been structured. I can see having undercover "Johns" get propostitioned by prostitutes because they must take the first action and be already willing to and looking to committ a crime. However, having an undercover agent actually initialize the crime is going a little too far.

case and point, I had a friend I worked with some years ago go into a beer store and buy beer. he came out, two women pulled up and asked if he would go buy them a 6 pack of Zima since they had been painting and did not want to go into a public place without cleaning up, which they had not had time to do and were not finished painting, just taking a break.

Well, the old boy complied being a good old boy and trying to help a couple very flirty young ladies only to find the police waiting when he came back out. They charged him with contr. to delinq. of minors buy buying beer for two underaged undercover policewomen. Read that last part again folks!

First off, if they were minors, how were they undercover policemen? Second, if they were not undercover policemen then who here really is endangering them? An old boy with his old junk car half apart had walked to the local store to buy a 6 pack of cheap beer before returning to work had now ended up in jail for buying beer for two minors employeed by the police department? He never set out to break the law. There was no criminal intent which we are told must be present for a crime to be committed so what gives?

My reasoning is not that we cannot try to plant undercover agents to catch predators, just that the controls on such operations must maintain a legal and constitutional bounds. If you list yourself as a 15 year old girl and someone propositions you, you bet you should bust them, but the undercover agents cannot be charged with the initiation of a criminal activity if said criminal intent is not present to begin with.

You don't need to waste taxpayer money on a hotel room, degrading a professional police woman by dressing her up like a tramp and have her solicite sex. Get out there and arrest people crawling through people's windows and stealing their stuff. Arrest the people who vandalize private and public property. They do it all everyday in plain sight. Yank the guy off the jogger in the park and haul him to jail. Noooo, we gotta always look just past the nose on our faces and make things as screwed up and complicated as possible.

You can't toss someone an apple and then arrest them for stealing just because they catch it to stop it from hitting the ground. It reminds me of that scene in the movie "Undercover Brother" where Chris Kattan was throwing stuff at UB and yelling Stop! Theif!

I mean Geez o pete, there are no shortages of criminals who openly deny the law that I think would fuel the need for cops out there trying to create crime for job security!

My .02


Agreed:
I myself have a friend that has been entrapped.
He was online on a public website for dating (a popular one in fact that alot of people and commmericals promote). I can't tell you which one because of the agreement on the parole. To make a long story short he met someone online that was a 19f and he being 24 thought nothing of it when he agreed to meet, mind you "she" sent the directions. When meeting he was arrested and was told he is now a sex offender. Now, he has to regester for 10 years as a sex offender.

She was a He and he was a cop that was 37.

How can this be justice?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join