BF2S Forums Should all law offenders be on a register?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, but if you justify all changes to law with "they should think about that before they do it" then it's the logical conclusion.

Changes? Criminals don't change the law, they break the law. They should think the consequences before they do the crime. You are saying it's ok for criminals to break the law then get protected when they did it?

Zombie_Affair wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, but if you justify all changes to law with "they should think about that before they do it" then it's the logical conclusion.

Changes? Criminals don't change the law, they break the law. They should think the consequences before they do the crime. You are saying it's ok for criminals to break the law then get protected when they did it?

Who said anything about criminals changing the law?

You're proposing a change.  I'm pointing out that your justification is foolish.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The thing is...  I question if even putting sex offenders on a list is a good idea.

I don't.  It's a terrible idea.

If you were raising kids, wouldn't you like to know if there's a sex offender in your immediate area. A childs safety is always my importance. I don't want to put my kids in harms way if I could have avoided it.

Turquoise wrote:

If anything, we need to devote more effort to helping people who have served their time to getting a legitimate job.  A lot of the reason for repeat offenders is because of a lack of opportunity to mend their ways.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Agreed.

I totally agree.

Zombie_Affair wrote:

If you were raising kids, wouldn't you like to know if there's a sex offender in your immediate area. A childs safety is always my importance. I don't want to put my kids in harms way if I could have avoided it.

The problem is when the "Think of the Children!" logic used to pass laws that are already questionable/intrusive.  I can see the reasons for and against sex offender registration, so I'm somewhat conflicted.  But what I do hate is how they ban sex offenders from living in certain areas.

For example, the guys in Florida forced to live under a bridge because they can't get housing anywhere else.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Zombie_Affair wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, but if you justify all changes to law with "they should think about that before they do it" then it's the logical conclusion.

Changes? Criminals don't change the law, they break the law. They should think the consequences before they do the crime. You are saying it's ok for criminals to break the law then get protected when they did it?

Who said anything about criminals changing the law?

You're proposing a change.  I'm pointing out that your justification is foolish.

I don't think I actually posted what side of the fence I'm on. So what changes?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

If I were raising a kid I wouldn't put anyone in a situation to mistreat them.  They have to be convicted to get on the registry, and many offenders target family.

But you're against a Sex Offenders register. so you wouldn't know. Obviously the register serves it's purpose well whether you agree to it or not yes?

Mikkel wrote:

Unfortunately, we all know that far from all criminals had malicious intent when carrying out whatever criminal acts they may have done

Certainly depends on the crime. Innocent until proven guilty.

Zombie_Affair wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The thing is...  I question if even putting sex offenders on a list is a good idea.

I don't.  It's a terrible idea.

If you were raising kids, wouldn't you like to know if there's a sex offender in your immediate area. A childs safety is always my importance. I don't want to put my kids in harms way if I could have avoided it.

If that's your concern, then you can research the public records I mentioned without having to use the lists we currently have.  I understand where you're coming from, but at the same time, I think the list itself is a sign that we aren't looking at the big picture.

We often do things with the intention of protecting children that end up being rather ridiculous.  Take, for example, the exorbitant fees levied on American media by the FCC for "indecency and profanity."

We also have sex laws here aimed at protecting minors that have had insane results.  There was a high profile statutory rape case of a 19 year old who had consensual sex with a 16 year old that led to his imprisonment.  The parents were just pissed and wanted to get back at the kid for fucking their daughter.  I think it was by more than just a coincidence that he was black and she was white (the case was in Georgia).

Also, there have been even more ridiculous things happen like kids getting charged with child porn for taking naked pics of themselves and sharing them with their peers.  There have been cases of young couples marrying where the bride is a minor and the groom is a 18 year old, and then the 18 year old gets charged with statutory for fucking his wife.  Check out a site called "moral outrage" for more crazy stories like that -- the sad thing is... they're all true.

I guess what I'm getting at is...  The sex offender list is, to me, not much better than the ridiculous things mentioned above.  You can be charged as a sex offender for pissing in your back yard, if a neighbor happens to see you do it and then calls the cops.  Now, I'm not saying that pissing in your back yard is a normal acceptable thing to do, but it shouldn't put you on the same list as Father McFeely.

Unfortunately... at this current point in time, it does....

Turquoise wrote:

If that's your concern, then you can research the public records I mentioned without having to use the lists we currently have.  I understand where you're coming from, but at the same time, I think the list itself is a sign that we aren't looking at the big picture.

We often do things with the intention of protecting children that end up being rather ridiculous.  Take, for example, the exorbitant fees levied on American media by the FCC for "indecency and profanity."

We also have sex laws here aimed at protecting minors that have had insane results.  There was a high profile statutory rape case of a 19 year old who had consensual sex with a 16 year old that led to his imprisonment.  The parents were just pissed and wanted to get back at the kid for fucking their daughter.  I think it was by more than just a coincidence that he was black and she was white (the case was in Georgia).

Also, there have been even more ridiculous things happen like kids getting charged with child porn for taking naked pics of themselves and sharing them with their peers.  There have been cases of young couples marrying where the bride is a minor and the groom is a 18 year old, and then the 18 year old gets charged with statutory for fucking his wife.  Check out a site called "moral outrage" for more crazy stories like that -- the sad thing is... they're all true.

I guess what I'm getting at is...  The sex offender list is, to me, not much better than the ridiculous things mentioned above.  You can be charged as a sex offender for pissing in your back yard, if a neighbor happens to see you do it and then calls the cops.  Now, I'm not saying that pissing in your back yard is a normal acceptable thing to do, but it shouldn't put you on the same list as Father McFeely.

Unfortunately... at this current point in time, it does....

Those are some good points.

Zombie_Affair wrote:

Mikkel wrote:

I wouldn't use a site like that. If a service existed charting the addresses of people capable of committing sexual or violent crime existed, many people wouldn't leave their homes.

If you think that the only potential dangers to your child are the people who've been convicted of sexual crimes in the past, and if you see a list like that and think that it's a definitive list of the dangers to your children, you're pretty naive. Dangers exist everywhere, and there's little to nothing you can do about the people who end up on these lists anyway.

Such sites do exist sadly.

Well, the point is that such sites don't exist, seeing as how you cannot pry into the minds of every single individual in the planet to determine whether or not they're capable of violent or sexual crimes, or if they have latent desires to commit these.

Zombie_Affair wrote:

I'm not naive, I'm well aware of what could happen to children. But as a Mother/Father/Guardian you will take every step to protect them. You cannot sit here and say that you wouldn't. You would, with all your power, protect them.

I haven't said that I wouldn't. What I'm saying is that I don't want to rely on prying into what should be people's private records to create some sort of false sense of security, or alienate people who may very well be on these lists for absurd charges like statutory rape with minimal age gaps. I'd prefer sanity, which is treating all people with the same scepticism, as all people are physically capable of hurting your loved ones.

mikkel wrote:

Zombie_Affair wrote:

Mikkel wrote:

I wouldn't use a site like that. If a service existed charting the addresses of people capable of committing sexual or violent crime existed, many people wouldn't leave their homes.

If you think that the only potential dangers to your child are the people who've been convicted of sexual crimes in the past, and if you see a list like that and think that it's a definitive list of the dangers to your children, you're pretty naive. Dangers exist everywhere, and there's little to nothing you can do about the people who end up on these lists anyway.

Such sites do exist sadly.

Well, the point is that such sites don't exist, seeing as how you cannot pry into the minds of every single individual in the planet to determine whether or not they're capable of violent or sexual crimes, or if they have latent desires to commit these.

Of course, but that's not the point. Sites exist that display current offenders, that's what I was getting at.

Zombie_Affair wrote:

I'm not naive, I'm well aware of what could happen to children. But as a Mother/Father/Guardian you will take every step to protect them. You cannot sit here and say that you wouldn't. You would, with all your power, protect them.

I haven't said that I wouldn't. What I'm saying is that I don't want to rely on prying into what should be people's private records to create some sort of false sense of security, or alienate people who may very well be on these lists for absurd charges like statutory rape with minimal age gaps. I'd prefer sanity, which is treating all people with the same scepticism, as all people are physically capable of hurting your loved ones.

It's the same as employement denying you a job because you don't have a clean background, is that wrong? Not getting a loan because you have a warrant, is that wrong too? Not being allowed to buy a car because you have previous felonies for Grand Theft, wrong too? All these people have access to your records.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

There is a bit of a problem with a public register for all criminals.

a) I understand crimes such as murder and rape, but not all 'criminals' have been rightly convicted, or have even committed serious crimes. If you're going to let them go, give them a chance to rebuild their lives. Otherwise, you can't drop them off underneath a highway overpass and expect them to stick around under the watchful eye of Big Brother.
b) Posting all that information may create in the public a false sense of security, leading to more attacks.

Absolutley. I never said they should be treated like shit. The Community/Government should be helping them, to get help, a job, a life.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, it doesn't.  There are documented cases of it driving people to reoffend.  Further, and more importantly, if you actually read what I said I pointed out that the register doesn't tell you who will abuse your children, hence why I suggested the far better policy of being generally cautious and suspicious.

Zombie_Affair wrote:

You're saying the list makes them Reoffend? That's like saying "My name is on my GP's list because I had an ear infection. Guess I'm going to have another ear infection". People make their own decisions, sometimes under different states of mind, but a list won't make you reoffend, you make you reoffend. That's why these people get help. I don't think offenders should be outcasts, if they are inclined to reoffend, I just want to know my kids are safe, for my kids sake and the previous offender.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Wow.  Comparing something related to the mind, which is therefore affected by how people treat you, to an ear infection.  That makes perfect sense.  I can see I'm up against a master here.  Further, they don't get help.  They're thrown into jail and then thrown out.  And then you go on to restate something you've said repeatedly, and I've responded to repeatedly.  Nice.

No they don't. They generally seek help. People of the Community are so against their actions they refuse to help. Employers won't give them jobs because they don't want a registered sex offender working for them.

You're also saying, that performing illegal actions, like raping a minor, has nothing to do with the mental state of mind. You think they want to do it? Most of them had bad upbringings and can't help it. That's why they get help. But of course they get locked up as well, they broke the law.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

As I said, according to statistics, you ought be looking at your family.  The rate of reoffence is only about 20%.  The number abused by family is much higher than that.

Zombie_Affair wrote:

I would protect my kids from my own family if that was the case. I'm not for or against the register. I wouldn't even begin to understand what these people have gone through, but you make it sound like I'm the bad guy for looking out for my kids?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

What of that is a response to what I said?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

you ought be looking at your family.

Zombie_Affair wrote:

I would protect my kids from my own family if that was the case.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Further, I love how anytime anyone uses actual logic and reason they're trying to demonise the other side and are therefore bad guys.  If what I've said makes you look like a bad guy, then perhaps you should consider that I'm using facts and logic and reason.  If the conclusion from what i've said is that you're a bad guy, maybe you are.  But I can't see how it does.  In fact, it seems to me more like a (poor) attempt to distract from what I've said by suggesting that I attack and demonise those who defend their children.  If you what to show that I'm wrong, tell me what I've said that's wrong.

Never said you were wrong at all. I agree mostly with what you have been saying. I'm just pointing out minor descrepincies.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Zombie_Affair wrote:

No they don't. They generally seek help. People of the Community are so against their actions they refuse to help. Employers won't give them jobs because they don't want a registered sex offender working for them.

Where did I say they don't seek help?

I said they don't get it.

Zombie_Affair wrote:

You're also saying, that performing illegal actions, like raping a minor, has nothing to do with the mental state of mind. You think they want to do it? Most of them had bad upbringings and can't help it. That's why they get help. But of course they get locked up as well, they broke the law.

Where did I say any of that?

Zombie_Affair wrote:

Never said you were wrong at all. I agree mostly with what you have been saying. I'm just pointing out minor descrepincies.

Except that you haven't pointed out any discrepancies.


Further, your comment that you'd protect your kids from your family ignores the context: the comment was made in relation to the uselessness of a register.

We are both doing the same thing, avoiding the context of eachother's posts lol.