Now this is disturbing

[SeaCat]

Now this is truly disturbing. While I can in some ways understand where the people are coming from it still seems wrong to me.Banned

Cat

 

[Bacteriophage68]

Grrr...

Those stupid pigs! (The police officers, that is.)

 

[rikaaim]

Yeah...that's great.

Some guy makes one fucking mistake in his life and knows he did wrong. He does his time, gets his scarlet letter, and gets to spend the rest of his days knowing his shame and not being able to move on from the lable. (Best case scenario person of course)

Okay...I just deleted what I just wrote. I don't want to be mean and spiteful. It's just wrong to force someone to their death. Plain and simple to me. Protect and serve. Yeah right.

If a person is guilty, it'll get sorted out in the end. To me the worst punishment we can give criminals anyway is forcing them to live and suffer long lives. Why kill them immediately? They just get what they want that way. I say let 'em live. But that's just me.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Bacteriophage68]

Re:

The county's sheriff says they "ought to fend for themselves" and will be arrested if they come near public shelters.

I think that's just plain mean....what would happen if someone told that sheriff to "fend for himself"? I don't think he'd like it, either. I can understand murderers...but geez, sex offenders? That's hardly a crime worth putting someone to death for, if you ask me....therapy-yes, death- no.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm torn. I don't like the idea of leaving anyone to fend for himself in a natural disaster. On the other hand, is it wise having sexual predators under the same roof as dozens of small children when power and lighting are unpredictable? Is it a fair risk for the parents and children?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm torn. I don't like the idea of leaving anyone to fend for himself in a natural disaster. On the other hand, is it wise having sexual predators under the same roof as dozens of small children when power and lighting are unpredictable? Is it a fair risk for the parents and children?

I'm not. Convicted molesters are already a proven threat to kids. I don't have any problem acting in a manner that keeps them away from kids. Especially in conditions where panic and fear have parents flying in several directions at once and supervision of kids is likely to be at a minimum. with darkness and close proximity being unavoidable.

 

[SeaCat]

In a way,a s mean as it sounds, I almost wish that county is hit by a storm and one of these "Sex Offenders" is injured. (Just slightly mind you, enough to be medicaly documented.) The law suits this spawns would be incredible making even the MJ lawsuit look like a petting zoo.

It seems as though the County Sherrif has decided he wasn't elected but was instead apointed by God.

Cat

 

[Guest]

I'm not. Convicted molesters are already a proven threat to kids. I don't have any problem acting in a manner that keeps them away from kids. Especially in conditions where panic and fear have parents flying in several directions at once and supervision of kids is likely to be at a minimum. with darkness and close proximity being unavoidable.

I agree with Colly.

Convicted child molesters go on to molest again and again.

They don't get "cured" by prison or by counseling.

And for them to be in a shelter with families? Single moms, usually, with several very young children?

No. Molesters are too dangerous to be allowed in that situation.

 

[R. Richard]

The county's sheriff says they "ought to fend for themselves" and will be arrested if they come near public shelters.

I think that's just plain mean....what would happen if someone told that sheriff to "fend for himself"? I don't think he'd like it, either. I can understand murderers...but geez, sex offenders? That's hardly a crime worth putting someone to death for, if you ask me....therapy-yes, death- no.

Perhaps I can give you an opposing opinion. Child molesters have to be kept separated from the general prison population if they are put in prison. The other inmates (including murderers) will harrass and even kill them. This situation is well known and not just an opinion.

Prison inmates mostly deny responsibility for their crimes. However, they do not tolerate those who victimize young children among them.

 

[rgraham666]

Perhaps it's my mental illness speaking, but this thread and others are causing Martin Niemoller's words to echo through my mind.

"First they came for the Jews…"

 

[cloudy]

Wait a sec, y'all. It doesn't say anywhere that all of those folks are child molesters, it just says "sex offenders" - which would include your friendly neighborhood flasher along with the guys that you need to be afraid of.

Just sayin.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps it's my mental illness speaking, but this thread and others are causing Martin Niemoller's words to echo through my mind.

"First they came for the Jews…"

And you may be right, Rob.

It's a sad situation all the way 'round.

But I can't think rationally when my kids may be affected.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Perhaps it's my mental illness speaking, but this thread and others are causing Martin Niemoller's words to echo through my mind.

"First they came for the Jews…"

I know how the rest of that goes. I would have no objection if they came for the child molesters and I would even point out any I know of and cheer for the authorities. That would be as far as it went, though. I knon't know of any other group I would say that of, except maybe politicians.

Actually, that would depend on the definition of "child". If it happened to be a sexy and willing 17 year old, I wouldn't hold that against anybody.

 

[SeaCat]

I'm not. Convicted molesters are already a proven threat to kids. I don't have any problem acting in a manner that keeps them away from kids. Especially in conditions where panic and fear have parents flying in several directions at once and supervision of kids is likely to be at a minimum. with darkness and close proximity being unavoidable.

Hmmmm, do you know an argument much like this one was used quite often not long ago. It was used against allowing Homosexuals into places like schools.

We must keep them segregated so they don't ruin/attack our children.

Kind of makes you think.

As was noted earlier this does not specify Child Molestors. It specifies "Sex Offenders". This includes the Panty Thieves, the flashers, the peepers, and yes the Rapists and Molestors.

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

Box, when was the last time human beings started drawing lines about who deserved to live and die, and stopped?

I can understand sarah. But as a person with a mental illness, and the stigma that comes from it, I can easily see myself being excluded for such a scenario.

And as cloudy pointed out, sex offender covers a much larger area than just child molesters. And would we be so quick to say 'yes' if gays were considered 'offenders' as they still often are?

Where do we draw the line?

 

[Weird Harold]

But I can't think rationally when my kids may be affected.

There are other choices than refusing shelter in a storm -- such as is mentioned in the article for Jackson county: sex offenders must identify themselves at the door; presumably so they can be sent to an adults only room in the shelter or otherwise segregated or monitored.

Refusing to shelter any human being in the face of a Hurricane or other natural disaster is just wrong, morally, ethically, and probably legally as well.

 

[minsue]

The problem I have is the number of convictions that qualify a person to have to register as a sex offender. A nineteen year old who is charged and convicted of statutory rape for consensual sex with a 16 or 17 year old will have to register as a sex offender for life in many states. Urinating in public is considered a sex offense in others.

Obviously, I can understand the need to protect the public from known rapists and especially child molesters, but I'd feel a hell of a lot better about it if they did so by fixing the sentencing guidelines and not by telling a person they have paid for their crimes and then denying them basic public safety rights.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Perhaps it's my mental illness speaking, but this thread and others are causing Martin Niemoller's words to echo through my mind.

"First they came for the Jews…"

It is my mental illness speaking Rob. And I know just how impossible it is to control myself when I'm off the meds. I can't see exposing kids to a molester on the off chance he is on a drug that is working and has been taking it regularly.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hmmmm, do you know an argument much like this one was used quite often not long ago. It was used against allowing Homosexuals into places like schools.

We must keep them segregated so they don't ruin/attack our children.

Kind of makes you think.

As was noted earlier this does not specify Child Molestors. It specifies "Sex Offenders". This includes the Panty Thieves, the flashers, the peepers, and yes the Rapists and Molestors.

Cat

The difference is, my homosexuality affects no one adversely, other than myself and perhaps my exes. Child molestoers destroy kids lives. And I can't say I am going to get up in arms when people try to protect kids from them. Even if the measures seem draconian. You cannot give a child his or her innocence back.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, when was the last time human beings started drawing lines about who deserved to live and die, and stopped?

I can understand sarah. But as a person with a mental illness, and the stigma that comes from it, I can easily see myself being excluded for such a scenario.

And as cloudy pointed out, sex offender covers a much larger area than just child molesters. And would we be so quick to say 'yes' if gays were considered 'offenders' as they still often are?

Where do we draw the line?

We draw lines even now. Some convicted persons are sent to prisons and some are sent to death row in those prisons.

I am assuming that the reference in the article was to child molesters and serial rapists. I don't think anybody has all that much animus toward flashers or those who have consensual sex with 17 year olds, although those persons are sexual offenders also.

 

[cloudy]

We draw lines even now. Some convicted persons are sent to prisons and some are sent to death row in those prisons.

I am assuming that the reference in the article was to child molesters and serial rapists. I don't think anybody has all that much animus toward flashers or those who have consensual sex with 17 year olds, although those persons are sexual offenders also.

Nope, that's not what it says. It says "registered sex offenders," and that means anyone from the rapist of elderly ladies on down to the 18 year old that flashed a carload of girls for the shock value.

 

[BigAndTall]

I have to say, you know when someone serves their sentence, they should be allowed back into society.

If we really feel these crimes are so horrible that sex offenders should not be in the general population, change the law and never let them out.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Nope, that's not what it says. It says "registered sex offenders," and that means anyone from the rapist of elderly ladies on down to the 18 year old that flashed a carload of girls for the shock value.

I know the article says "offenders and predators" but I can't believe they would apply the same law to some gy who pissed in an alley or a woman who took off her pasties while dancing on a stage in a bar or otherwise harmless individuals.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have to say, you know when someone serves their sentence, they should be allowed back into society.

If we really feel these crimes are so horrible that sex offenders should not be in the general population, change the law and never let them out.

There are movements afoot to do that even now and that is one of the reasons for Megan's law. Even now, some persons are kept in prison past their release dates on the grounds they are still dangerous.