Bill O'Rielly's Crusade against Child Rapists

I don't know if it can be classed as an epidemic. It just happens to be the topic that gets covered at this point and time. Don't misunderstand me....I'm not approving of these peoples actions what-so-ever though considering over 18,000+ people are killed every year by drunk drivers then that should be considered an epidemic.

Think about it, this country has a population of 280+ million people...if 1,000 such cases should not lead to tracking individuals, which will lead IMO to tracking others as well. Lock the people up.......find some sort of treatment that will work (maybe mandatory castration), but they need to be more specific so not everyone under the current law gets affected the same way for lesser offenses.

Now if a 18 yr sleeps with a 16 yrs (2 yr didderence....not a whole lot) they are listed as a sex offender for life, that could lead to a mandatory sentence of 25 yrs to life. I think that is ridiculous and wrong. The gross overwhelming cases are the ones who should be penelized that way not the lesser offenses.

I also, to a certian degree, blame the fashion world, I remeber when young girls wore dresses and 'tough skin' jeans and played with barbies, now-a-days they wear the low rise jeans with thongs showing (appropriate for old women not young girls)

Originally posted by ferretman
I also, to a certian degree, blame the fashion world, I remeber when young girls wore dresses and 'tough skin' jeans and played with barbies, now-a-days they wear the low rise jeans with thongs showing (appropriate for old women not young girls)

What?

You think these 9 year-olds are seducing these perverts or something? I am sorry but they could be naked and it wouldn't turn me on, they are babies for Gods sake. How about place the blame where it belongs, on the scumbags who rape children.

I don't know what state you live in but here the age of consent is 16 so the argument that some poor 18 year old will wind up being convicted is moot. If that is an issue in your state you should write your state Representatives to get it changed.

Tracking is my last choice my first choice is a bullet and my second is being locked up for life.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Of course what his guest said about Libertarians is ridiculous. That's why I thought of the 'anti-Republican grouping' suspicion. Libertarians haven't been slandered nearly as much as the 'left-wing liberals' and they need a little dirt thrown their way so they don't get a big following. If they're not careful, some disenchanted Democrats might just switch to Libertarian.

or even worse some of the Republicans that are tired of un-kept promises and campaign lies of their party will join. Most of the Libertarian base is disenchanted Republicans. What is strange is this man (O'Reilly) has claimed in the past to be a Libertarian but shows almost no knowledge of our platform or Ideals.

Pardon my sarcasm, but I find it really hard to take this man seriously.

No doubt he is doing it for personal gain, I doubt he cares as much as he pretends to do. As someone else stated he is saying "I am against child rape, how about you?" I have seen him lie on his show claiming he is the ONLY one doing this Crusade while "The Abrams Report" is doing it to without the hysterics or pomp.

Other than that, I think it's wonderful that this subject is being discussed the light and I hope some real good comes from it. The matter of childhood sexual abuse in whatever form needs to come out of the dark corners and be dealt with. Hopefully, even if O'Reilly does have an ulterior motive, there may be some real good come from his report, as C0le suggests.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

My thoughts exactly

There is an old southern saying that goes, 'The hit dog yelps the loudest!'
Your post sounds a tad bit like someone afraid that they might get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Even if there is one murder of a child a year in the US, that is one too much. I agree with Amuck, first a bullet and if not that, jail for life. And stating that the way a women or girl dresses has something to do with it? Thats total BS, man and I can't believe that you would even post that crap on this thread.

I worded my point wrongly. I do not condone this behavior what-so-ever. I'm just stating that the implactions of passing a law about tracking could have very adverse affects. I agree with you that these muderous ones and ones against preteens should be killed or never see the light of day, my point was supposed to be towards the lesser offensives such as being tracked for life if a 18 yr old messes with someone close to their age.

Originally posted by ferretman
I worded my point wrongly. I do not condone this behavior what-so-ever.

no problem I am glad you cleared it up

I'm just stating that the implactions of passing a law about tracking could have very adverse affects. I agree with you that these muderous ones and ones against preteens should be killed or never see the light of day, my point was supposed to be towards the lesser offensives such as being tracked for life if a 18 yr old messes with someone close to their age.

the age of consent varies from state to state from 14-18 (I think) I dont think anyone wants an 18 year old to be classified as a rapist for messing with his 17 year-old prom date, but how many states is this even an issue in? I think that problem can be fairly easily smothed out.

Here is a guide for those interested not only of the states but of other countries as well

*whoops let me use another link*
*the first link was to a site that was inappropriate....LOL, note to self check site BEFORE providing link...LOL*

www.avert.org...


7 states have 18 as the age of consent most like mine have 16.

What surprised me was how many countries had 12 as the age of consent.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Amuk]

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Amuk]

Originally posted by Amuk
Anyone got an opinion on O'Reilly's Crusade?

Or the slur on Libertarians?

Well, I question anything that Bill O'Reily does....call me biased I dont care. He has an agenda, period. If he wants to crusade against child rapists, I support that 100%. But in regards to comments like "libertarians being soft on child rapists", that is where his agenda shines through. He sits back acting 'neutral' while guests are prompted to say the things that promotes their true purpose. They reel everyone in with a 'crusade' against child rapists - something ANYone can rally behind whethor you are conservative, liberal, christian, agnostic, jew, muslim........ANYone who has a sense of decency would.

The Libertarian Party is one of the biggest threats to the two party system right now - especially for republicans. There are alot of republicans who are now Libertarian just because they like balance. This party seems to embody the best of both worlds. Sure you have people on the extreme right and the extreme left, and the politics of this country right now say you are one or the either, no in between - this is simply untrue. More and more people are waking up to this every day.

I like the Libertarian viewpoint more and more. I have traditionally always been a Liberal, but not to the extreme. I believe that animals should be humanely treated, that the environment SHOULD be preserved, and that creating super billionares is a BAD idea. But, I also like to eat meat, and understand that change takes time.

As someone said recently as soon as people start to mention underage sex and, in most cases, all sense flies straight out of the window.

It is almost always a cue for the wheeling out of every unthinking brutal worst instinct going and to hell with the facts and details of the matter.

(witness the instances of American 18/19yrs olds being labelled 'sex offenders' when caught with a 17yr old in some states.

Here in the UK one may get labelled as having comitted 'an act of gross indecency' by taking a piss at the back of a building, off the main street in the dark.

To have a record which includes something like being convicted as comitting 'an act of gross indecency' is taken by many here to mean a sex offence.
No-one is going to check the details - even if the details were made available to them.)

Anyhoo I wouldn't trust O'Rielly's motives one jot.

This all started about 2-3 weeks ago on the factor.

St. Louis County Missouri Judge gave a CM probation for molesting a girl over several years.

O'reily went bizerk becuase the Judge handed out a slap on the wrist judgement for this crime.

I have to agree with O'Reily, laws need to be changed.

25 year minimum for child molestation.

Even here in the States, if you get caught 'relieving' yourself you would get an indecent exposure charge & have a chance of being sentanced as a 1st tier sex offender, which means life long registration.

Granted this is a 'extreme' case but has happened as been mentioned in previous threads. Until a specific law with specific wording is designed nothing should be passed in haste.

Originally posted by ferretman
Even here in the States, if you get caught 'relieving' yourself you would get an indecent exposure charge & have a chance of being sentanced as a 1st tier sex offender, which means life long registration.

- Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me.

"Indecent exposure"; the other wording sometimes used here in the UK too.

So they label you a flasher and a sex offender.

What surprised me was how many countries had 12 as the age of consent.

I don't find that surprising, 12 is roughly the onset of puberty - when people start wanting to have sex. In most traditional societies, the age of 12 or 13 is considered the end of childhood and the onset of adulthood.

Before the industrial revolution mandated an extended adolescence, people were considered "adults" once they entered their early teens, in fact in many rural areas marriages at 13 or 14 were the rule rather than the exception. The notion that teenagers are "children" is actually quite a recent one, historically.

As much as I share the anger towards actual child molesters, I also recognize that setting the AOC at 18 is silly, why not go totally nuts and make it 21 or hell, 30? I suspect that, since most people lose their virginity before 18 these days, there are a whole lot of teenage sex offenders out there these days going unprosecuted

Laws that pretend an 18yo sleeping with his 17yo girlfriend is the same as an adult guy that rapes an 8yo are idiotic. I think the graduated AOC laws that are starting to come into play are a little more sensible - IE the difference in age, not the age itself, is used to define whether sex is prosecutable. That or the Dutch system; 12 and

I noticed that the AOC in the Philipines is 12, if the Philipines is a soveriegn nation, why do Americans (many like Bill O'Rielly) get prosecuted in the USA after going to the Philipines for activity that is accepted?

But then, maybe Bill is just trying to get some leniency for something?

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
I noticed that the AOC in the Philipines is 12, if the Philipines is a soveriegn nation, why do Americans (many like Bill O'Rielly) get prosecuted in the USA after going to the Philipines for activity that is accepted?

But then, maybe Bill is just trying to get some leniency for something?

As an American citizen you are still bound by American laws in other countries, especially in regard to traveling overseas for the purpose of engaging in sex with minors.

I'm concerned anytime sometime starts throwing around the word "epidemic" for ratings and authoritarian populism. I'm further concerned how well it works.

There's a very real "movement" in this nation to kick ourselves in the ass.

Damn us, we're evil. I seen it on the TV. What we need here is a firm hand to smack us in line. We obviously can't handle freedom.

I'm all for punishing people to the extent they deserve it, but I like judges to have brains too and prefer they make those decisions. Not people that watch Bill O'Reilly specifically to get a bee in their bonnet. Believe it or not that speech a Judge gives right before delivering a politically "popular" manditory sentence about how they realize you're the young man that's the exception but there are no exceptions anymore and his hands are tied... (pound the gavel) 25 years! ...doesn't make the next 25 years go any faster.

It also makes the sentence pretty meaningless compared to the dog in the cell next to you serving 25 years but deserving 100.

Some bad judical decisions happen. That's life. Take them with a grain of salt though when that's all you hear about on the news. Like it or not the news is "what went wrong." And it does not matter who controls the White House or who started the war. With the obvious exceptions, the media by and large is not there to cheerlead. And one would have to be practically braindead from choking on government propaganda to assume it should.

The bad decisions we all hear about and focus on though are just the price of having a fair justice system. That's the cost of freedom. I mean if we just turn judges into vending machines for whatever a politically motivated media manages to convince us we need, why even have them? I know the authoritarians in this country would like that, but those of us with a libertarian bone in our body that think FOXNEWS Aruba sensationalism is full of # need those judges to protect us from you.

So of course an authoritarian anti-judge show like Bill O'Reilly has guests on slamming libertarians. Authoritarians hate freedom, hate civil liberties and will say anything they have to (like the ACLU is pro-pedophilia or being pro-choice is racism ) to sell you their restrictions and get the masses under their thumb.

Don't fall for it. It still amazes me though how many people are willing to lead the charge in the War on Us. All it takes is a pretty blonde on the T-V.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by RANT]

Originally posted by Yorga
The issue is not O'Reily it is the children.

Can't agree with you on that one. I am deeply suspicious of those who begin to publicly identify themselves as the only ones who care about this issue.

Through mass-media identification they make themselves at least as, if not more, important as the issue.

Child rape (the rape of children, not so much children who rape) is the one issue that travels well throughout the western world. Abortion doesn't come close to raising the same levels of passion.

For this reason anyone who immediately plays to the emotion by identifying leaders as being "soft" on the issue should be muzzled and those who call for "community-wide" (I guess you could call it) discussion, consultation, etc should be amplified. The problem is in western democracies we are all guaranteed certain rights, and for a bloody good reason. That includes paedophiles.

The example of this behaviour is those calling the ACLU soft on child rapers. As an Australian I would suggest the ACLU is very HARD on anyone who tries to trample constitutional rights and that that would be their ONLY position.

Look at Skokie. Illinois.

For years I didn't understand the reference in the Blues Brothers. Then I saw the Danny Kaye (?) film named Skokie. The Nazi Party have a right to march, just as Dr King had a right to march. By banning them the municipality turned them into a cause celebre and spent too much money defending their position. The ACLU defended the Nazis, as was the Nazis' right, and won for them the right to march.

7 people attended the march.

Instead of trying to ban the march a counter march/rally in front of city hall should have been organised for the same day.

If you're going to attack the sick wierdoes of NAMBLA, do it 100% legally, don't give them opportunites or loopholes or excuses.

Hell, play repeats of South Park if you need to.

I am a father and a grandfather so the thought of hurting any child just totally disgust me. We live in a society where my grandson cannot go outside in his own yard and play without constant supervision for fear of such predators. Is it asking to much to protect our children?

I am a father also, and never having been put in the position of victim I cannot say what my response would be. Would it be the natural and protective instinct to do much harm to the perpetrator? Or would it be to rationally allow the law to do its job and wait for indisputable proof of the alleged perpetrator's guilt to be established and then the justice system to give an appropriate sentence? I don't know.

As for the society we live in, we created it, so who's at fault?

People like O'Reilly, whose broadcasts I have never seen I must add, simply take me back to 1992/3 and Genesis' Jesus He Knows Me.

"I believe in the family, there they are right beside me. But they don't know about my girlfriend or the man I met last night." (not 100% accurate)

World-wide US televangelists have zip credibility.

Except for Billy Graham.