[X] My Assistant

[Lyenuv]

I also want to add that the law isn't perfect, nor is the label "sex offender" synonymous with rape. As someone mentioned earlier, if you urinate in public you might be labeled a sex offender. Someone can be painted as a sex offender if they're 19 and have consensual sex with a 17-year-old.

This. My ex-fiance would have been considered a sex offender two out of the four years him and I were together, since I was 16 and he was 19 when we met. If my mom would have pressed statutory rape charges on him, he'd have been labled a sex offender for the rest of his life for having a pretty normal relationship

~~
And speaking as a mother, I'm pretty indifferent on the sex offender registry. It may be because my kidlets are still young enough to not leave my site, or because of the flaws in the system mentioned above. According to my counties registry, there are 8 sex offenders within a mile of my townhouse. They don't list specific crimes or ages, just "solicitation of a minor", which is a very broad term.

[Reyo]

I also want to add that the law isn't perfect, nor is the label "sex offender" synonymous with rape. As someone mentioned earlier, if you urinate in public you might be labeled a sex offender. Someone can be painted as a sex offender if they're 19 and have consensual sex with a 17-year-old.

This. My ex-fiance would have been considered a sex offender two out of the four years him and I were together, since I was 16 and he was 19 when we met. If my mom would have pressed statutory rape charges on him, he'd have been labled a sex offender for the rest of his life for having a pretty normal relationship

~~
And speaking as a mother, I'm pretty indifferent on the sex offender registry. It may be because my kidlets are still young enough to not leave my site, or because of the flaws in the system mentioned above. According to my counties registry, there are 8 sex offenders within a mile of my townhouse. They don't list specific crimes or ages, just "solicitation of a minor", which is a very broad term.

I can almost garuntee that 6 of those 8 were just dumbass college drunks who were too blottoed to make it to the bathroom before having to whip it out and leak the pipes.

[pichu egg]

No life. I say from my heart that we should behead, burn alive, feed to sharks, cook alive, and eat pedophiles! I mean they raped little boys an girls and they must suffer in hell for their evil act(s)! In fact if I ever find out about a pedo I'll report it and eat it alive!

This post has been edited by pichu egg: Oct 28 2010, 04:49 PM

[MoogleSam]

No life. I say from my heart that we should behead, burn alive, feed to sharks, cook alive, and eat pedophiles! I mean they raped little boys an girls and they must suffer in hell for their evil act(s)! In fact if I ever find out about a pedo I'll report it and eat it alive!

Not all of them raped little boys and girls. You can be declared a pedophile for even thinking about doing things with a child, whether you really do them or not is a different story entirely. Hell, you can be declared a sex offender for urinating in public in some places, not all of them, but some. You could also be declared a pedophile if you take pictures of a kid in their underwear, though it could be for medical reasons such as evidence to show they don't have rashes in a reaction to something.

[jhunter]

I don't think you should ever do something bad to a child.

[evolutionrex]

Now, what these people did were horrible, horrible things and they should get the best (best for us, bad for them) punishment, but once they have finished their punishment i think their should be a limit on how the government watches them. I think if a pedophile hasn't done anything wrong in a certain period of time, then i think the government should leave them alone. Some of these people did something wrong, and they know that, and some don't ever want to do it again becuase of regret. In my opinion, the government should let them off the hook after about 10 years of watching a pedophile. If the pedophile does it again, or goes against certain laws, they should go back to jail for what they did; those people have no regret. I think some people do have regret and deserve to have some life without embarrassment.

[MoogleSam]

Now, what these people did were horrible, horrible things and they should get the best (best for us, bad for them) punishment, but once they have finished their punishment i think their should be a limit on how the government watches them. I think if a pedophile hasn't done anything wrong in a certain period of time, then i think the government should leave them alone. Some of these people did something wrong, and they know that, and some don't ever want to do it again becuase of regret. In my opinion, the government should let them off the hook after about 10 years of watching a pedophile. If the pedophile does it again, or goes against certain laws, they should go back to jail for what they did; those people have no regret. I think some people do have regret and deserve to have some life without embarrassment.

Well said. Though as mentioned several times, they don't all do things that harm children at all. Paedophiles are people that have a sexual desire for children BUT, it does not mean they ever have or will do anything towards children. It is like how being a necrophile is to have an abnormal, often sexual attraction toward the dead or a dead body but, it does not mean they will touch a dead body.

[PikaDiety]

First off: any pedophile who has never touched a child should not be in prison or face any punishment. That's like saying anyone who has thought about murdering someone should be put in prison (because then pretty much everyone would be in prison).

Now, if a pedophile has done something to a child? Yes, they should be in prison. Should they be in prison for life? No. They should be forced to go to prison, and forced to attend therapy, but they shouldn't have to do so for life. Because some people regret what they did. Sure, not all do, and those are the ones that should be in prison for life. The pedophiles who have touched children and have no regret about it, and are going to do it again. But the ones who regret what they have done, they deserve that second chance. Now, I agree with them having to register as a sexual offender, because that's what they are, technically. But they should be free to have a second chance at life.

[roygbiv]

the guys who rape are nuts they shouldgo to jail 4 life all they do is rape and go to jail

[ReinisC]

So, look if a human does something bad, he gets punished, by either, humans or life itself,

So we cant let then near children anymore, then why do we?

Lets make cities were they are free to live alongside each other and have a life.

A city were they are guarded

A city called, JAILOTOPIA!

[Layana]

With the rising tide of sexual predators that prowl our streets and internet, the world seems to think that to protect our children, we should release them from prison and stick them in a new area, with a new name, and fail to inform the families in the area that a monster is indeed living next door. I am sad to say, that this is the case with my street.

Just yesterday in fact, I found out that a man who has lived on the street for nearly as long as I have (18 years) was jailed for possession of child pornography and abuse. I was disgusted. I see this man every day of my life, and I had no idea that he was a sick sexual predator.

{etc. rest of post}

Since there is already so much here I'd like to propose this comment for you to consider... How much information do you have on this crime? If none, then how do you know this was not done during that last 18th year only and was his first offense? If so then well... not exactly something that could have been predicted.

Overall I agree with many the comments here including the different levels in the term 'sex offender' While I do not believe harming a child is by any stretch right, there is only so much 'normal people and the law' can do about well, not normal people without making 'normal' life too restricted.

Also, the whole jail thing, jail is expensive for the common person. There is only so much I would and can pay for safety (the more people in jail or jail cities the more other people have to pay for it since except for threats/etc. you can't force the jailed to do meaningful work/help). Then you also get to the question of morality for those jailed.... but that leads into so many other things so I'll stop here.

[Toothy]

I'm sure if it was one of your precious loved ones who was involved in something depraved like this, you'd want them to have the chance to remake themselves, especially if the signs of hope were there and the crime was committed ages ago. People deserve means to protect their children from these people, but people also don't deserve to have one bad decision ruin their entire life beyond salvation. Cruelty doesn't fix cruelty, and a lust for revenge isn't the same as a desire for justice. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

[Nectaris]

Did you know you can be charged with possession of and/or distribution of child pornography for having pictures of YOURSELF if you are below the age of consent?

Personally I am very leery on the idea of how to punish them, or how much to punish them. To me it seems like something that should be very case by case based. I mean, different states have different ages of consent, meaning that something legal in one state could very well be illegal in another. What if someone possessed pictures that were perfectly legal where they lived, but moved to another state where they weren't? Should someone like that be punished as much as someone who knowingly took illegal pictures?

[Skins T]

I think there should be a giant prison built on a secluded island in the middle of the ocean and every pedo on earth should be shoved there to live out their sentence until they die. :|

[MoogleSam]

I think there should be a giant prison built on a secluded island in the middle of the ocean and every pedo on earth should be shoved there to live out their sentence until they die. :|

Wha? Not even building prisons on islands prevent escape, I read about three or so people escaping an island prison by using about 37 or 38 raincoats quite a few years ago. Pretty sure they were murderers though, not paedophiles.

And once again, NOT ALL PAEDOPHILES TOUCH CHILDREN. Being sexually attracted to children does NOT mean that they are child molesters or will do anything bad to a child. And even if they do touch a child, that does NOT mean they deserve to be sent to a prison on an island to live until death.

Seriously, families would hate the person that made that happen if that actually happened because not only would they have to take ferries or ships to the island to visit them, which depending on how far away it is from the mainland could take DAYS to travel to, they would have to do it knowing that the person would always be there. And yes, family would still visit them because they are more likely to see what drove them to it or understand that it was a lapse of judgement than someone that doesn't truly know them.

Paedophiles can also realise what they did was wrong and never do it again you know.

You can't push the punishment to some crazy standard like staying on an island until death just because you really really don't like people that touch children or think about touching children. That'd be like saying thieves or people that think about stealing should be jailed for a minimum of 20 years when they either stole something dead cheap like a chocolate bar that costs $0.20 or nothing at all because you really really don't like people that steal or even think about stealing.

[Skins T]

Fine, sexual predators then. :/ No need to go off the deep end.

And frankly? I thought it would be pretty obvious that that situation would apply to those who actually DID have sex with children, or tried to.

Also? I have about as much pity for families of sexual predators as I do of convicted rapists and murderers. In other words? Absolutely none.

[Cassowary]

Pedophiles... it's not their fault they've got that particular "fetish". If they act upon it, then yes, they ought to be punished and get counseling. If they don't, they're not doing anyone harm.

I don't count those people who got labeled as "sex offenders" for public urination/other. They just need to stop getting blotto'd

[RoyalDemon]

I think some can't stop doing this, but maybe other pedophiles can.But the problem is: you don't know if they can stop or not.So it's hard to trust them, I think.

And I have to say, it is making me sick.I don't know, why the hell could someone do something like that?I mean, do they think:"Hey, it would be fun to ruin the life of a little child, so let's abuse one!" or what?Some of the lillte children were killed, and thats even worse.
I wouldn't trust someone, who treats children like lifeless puppets.

It's risky to give pedophiles a second chance, because they still can abuse children, but on the other side, maybe some can stop and feel sorry and it would be unfair to say that they don't deserve a normal life. :/

But even if they are sorry, we can't undo what they've done, and the children won't feel better.

There is no "best" solution for this, unless you know to 100%, that they are ready to stop or not.Like I said, you don't know, so it's hard to trust them.

That's just my opinion.

(Sorry for my english)

[Pikalover10]

Lord have mercy.

Ok, I'm NOT saying it's ok. DEFINETLY not, it's sick and disgusts me and if I ever am in the situation to stop someone from it I will beat the shit outta them for even thinking about it.

But, anyway.

It depends. I do think the people should be allowed ONE more chance. Not two, not three. ONE. Now, I don't think their names should be changed. I think that the government shouldn't tell on the news or in papers that this person is out living on such and such street at such and such house, but to inform them that he/she is legally living in the streets with them, but I do believe police officers should go door to door in the neighborhood where this person lives and to tell them.

I think they should be given a second chance, because some people truelly are sorry for their actions. I do think they should have the court dates and lie detectors and everything first, so that to the best of our abilities we can see if they really are sorry. If not, lock em up. If so, allow them one more chance.

[MoogleSam]

I do think they should have the court dates and lie detectors and everything first, so that to the best of our abilities we can see if they really are sorry.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your point in this sentence but, lie detectors aren't that accurate if the person is good at controlling their heart rate so they might not be that useful.