49 replies to this topic

[GraniteJJ]

Yeah. So, what do you think about sex offender registries? What is a suitable punishment for pedophilia or a sexual offense?

Have at it.

To those who don't know, by the way, a sexual offender registry is exactly what it sounds like. Previously convicted sex offenders are put on a list that police use to find culprits in future crimes. Specifics differ by area.

Go nuts. I like to voice my opinion after someone comes in to stir the pot. If I voice my opinion in the opening post, it seems its mostly Granite vs. the world.

[arunma]

Interesting question. One one hand, convicted sex offenders who serve their time should be released without any further punishment. On the other hand, they could be dangers to society.

But then, so could murderers, and murderers who leave prison don't pay any added penalty, even though murder is clearly worse than sexual abuse.

Maybe the law isn't strict enough?

[SteveT]

Well, at least murder victims don't have to deal with any mental torture after the fact. Freedom from that is a luxury rape victims don't have.

[arunma]

True...but the same could be said of assult, battery, sometimes even robbery. Furthermore, relatives of murder victims suffer far more than relatives of rape victims.

I'm not really saying that there's anything wrong with sexual offender registration. I'm saying that it should apply to released murderers too.

[SteveT]

Precisely. Murder has a more diffused effects. Rape and such have very focused effects. Overall, the effects have the same amount, more or less.

I think that if people served their punishment and are actually reformed, they shouldn't have to be labeled as a rapist, a murderer, or a child molester. They've served their time, they should be allowed to get on with their life. If you insist on alerting people, let them know after the guy moved into town and got settled in that someone in that town was a released felon without giving any hints whatsoever as to who it was. This puts parents on guard, but doesn't interfere with anyone's right to live their life.

[GraniteJJ]

I think the registration takes the focus away from new criminals. I mean, it would seriously delay the investigation if you're looking through a list of old offenders, meanwhile this new guy is driving to Mexico with an 11-year-old girl gagged in his trunk.

I think the registry, as it exists now, is a flawwed idea, because it diverts attention from new offenders. Don't get me wrong. Sexual offenders need to be watched...but I think the registry is just...wierd.

And I think a rape victim and the relatives of a murdered person will feel the same fear and resentment towards the criminal who wronged them. But...that's just me.

[SteveT]

It's possible. Neither of us seems to have had any first-hand experience with either. Well, I know I haven't, and your tone implies neither have you.

[GraniteJJ]

Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 15 2004, 11:50 PM
It's possible.  Neither of us seems to have had any first-hand experience with either.  Well, I know I haven't, and your tone implies neither have you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My tone...in text?

[SteveT]

Tone exists in text.

[Alistia]

I have a personal experience with this stuff as well... and I can honestly say, I'm not sure where I stand on this. I'll clarify later, of course, as I'm about to become a little busy.

[arunma]

If most offenders become repeat offendors, why let them out in the first place? Don't those smart psychologists know how to tell if a person will repeat their offense or not?

[SteveT]

But do government beaurocrats listen to smart psychologists?

[SteveT]

Only if we start taking people's hands for stealing and their tongues for speaking treason.

[Oberon Storm]

When I get some brats of my own I would like to know if there is a crazed pedophile next door or even down the block. Prison time does not = rehabilitation.

[SteveT]

Then we need to find more effective punishments than a time-out from society.

[Alistia]

Originally posted by Cyberventurer@Sep 16 2004, 10:52 AM
Suitable punishment?  Can anyone help to think up something more appropriate than castration?   <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As much as I joke around, I'd like to keep my dick. So yeah, I'm not in favor of castration. Toobad4u.

[Alistia]

Well, this is going to be taken the wrong way but... you'd have someone imprisoned indefinitely for touching a child, or would you be willing to settle on it depends on the degree of the assault?

[Alakhriveion]

Well, I believe in harsh punishments for child molesters, to make me feel better, and rehabilitation, to make the world actually better. But you can't punishsomeone for wanting to fool with kid's parts, things like the ban on POSSETION of kiddie porn are a violation of free speech, and therefore wrong.

[Alistia]

No, a ban on the posession of that stuff is not a violation of free speech. And it should be banned.



I'm able to bring about a unique perspective to this argument, but I'm so deathly afraid to really speak about it. Just trust me that not everything about this is as black and white as you'd like to make it.

[Alakhriveion]

Originally posted by Alistia@Sep 16 2004, 07:55 PM
No, a ban on the posession of that stuff is not a violation of free speech.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it is. It's a restriction of communication. Now, as for it's production, punishments for that need to be harsher.

[Alistia]

...........


How do you communicate with child pornography, Alak? Please illustrate a clear form of communication via child pornography.


All this "omg I r cant have pikters of liddl kids naykid is aginst my rites!" is utter bullshit.

[SteveT]

That's what I love about American laws.

[Alakhriveion]

Originally posted by Alistia@Sep 16 2004, 07:59 PM
...........
How do you communicate with child pornography, Alak? Please illustrate a clear form of communication via child pornography.
All this "omg I r cant have pikters of liddl kids naykid is aginst my rites!" is utter bullshit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No- the transmittion of the pron itself, or the movement of the pictures, is communication, and that shouldn't be restricted.

As for the other bit, I agree with you. I believe they should be allowed to have it, but they shouldn't really have communication with the rest of society if they do, that's too nasty.

[Alistia]

............ok. So you're against allowing people to produce kiddie-porn, but once it's already made, well then, who cares? It's "communication"?


That disturbs me a great deal, Alak.

[Alakhriveion]

Originally posted by Alistia@Sep 16 2004, 08:03 PM
............ok. So you're against allowing people to produce kiddie-porn, but once it's already made, well then, who cares? It's "communication"?
That disturbs me a great deal, Alak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, basically. But it's rarely produced, that's too difficult for people. It's faked,or Photoshopped, and it's still illegal to posses that. And even for that which is real, no matter how fucked up it is, you don't take away free communication, period. Principle.

[Alistia]

Child pornography isn't a necessity for communication to exist. You're making it sound like it is.