BF2S Forums Sex offender laws need to be reworked

cpt.fass1 wrote:

OK? and your point is?

Seriously I'd rather rely on my own friends and family to protect me then a government that is more interested in milking money out of people. You want a legal system that works? Make it so it's not a judge and a law written on paper and pass it to the victims, you'll have tons of people thinking more about their crimes then you do now. Our legal system is broken beyond repair, we have innocents and minor felons in jail for no reason, and it's on the backs of the American people.

If it's any consolation, it would be hard to find a jury that would actually convict you for killing someone that raped someone like your mother, wife, or one of your kids.

I would think most juries would either let you off or decrease your sentence recommendation considerably.

Turquoise wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Pug wrote:

hypocrite

Same way that they won't answer my question about letting a prior convicted pedo babysit their kids, or let a prior convicted common thief babysit their house while they are away on vacation.

You seem to ignore the fact that there are law enforcement resources that aren't open to the public viewing but you can access the relevant information for by running a background check.

There is a vast difference between background checks and a registry.

So, to answer your question, I would simply do a background check on anyone I'm considering watch my kids.

That's not hypocritical, because it doesn't use a registry like the one we've been discussing.

I fail to see the difference between the two. One set of information just requires money in order to acquire it (background check) while the registry doesn't. The end goal is the same, you're prying into an individuals life and passing judgement on them based on their past. Why not just make a national registry for everyone where all speeding tickets, felonies, former sexual conquests etc can all be tabulated in an easy to read format so you know exactly who you are hiring, right down to the size of their underwear.

Ilocano wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Same way that they won't answer my question about letting a prior convicted pedo babysit their kids, or let a prior convicted common thief babysit their house while they are away on vacation.

You seem to ignore the fact that there are law enforcement resources that aren't open to the public viewing but you can access the relevant information for by running a background check.

There is a vast difference between background checks and a registry.

So, to answer your question, I would simply do a background check on anyone I'm considering watch my kids.

That's not hypocritical, because it doesn't use a registry like the one we've been discussing.

Actually, I'm not referring to the registry regarding my post above.  Going tangent and going to the root of the problem, the criminal who I don't believe has rehabilitated just because they have served their sentence.  It's about hiring the convicted pedo who did your kid, to babysit your kids.  Seeing as some say the pedo can do a reset of his life just because he has served his sentence.  And since we can't quarantine/segregate pedo's, the registry is the best compromise we have.

Prohibiting pedos from having jobs involving children doesn't require a registry, nor does it require having them go door to door to mention they are a pedo.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-20 20:22:38)

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You seem to ignore the fact that there are law enforcement resources that aren't open to the public viewing but you can access the relevant information for by running a background check.

There is a vast difference between background checks and a registry.

So, to answer your question, I would simply do a background check on anyone I'm considering watch my kids.

That's not hypocritical, because it doesn't use a registry like the one we've been discussing.

I fail to see the difference between the two. One set of information just requires money in order to acquire it (background check) while the registry doesn't. The end goal is the same, you're prying into an individuals life and passing judgement on them based on their past. Why not just make a national registry for everyone where all speeding tickets, felonies, former sexual conquests etc can all be tabulated in an easy to read format so you know exactly who you are hiring, right down to the size of their underwear.

So you don't believe employers should be able to find out the past records of potential employees?

I don't think it's universally a good idea. Should banks be allowed to do background checks to filter out those with convictions in theft or fraud? Yes. Does your local Taco Bell need access to the criminal record of it's potential employees? Hardly. Being responsible for millions of dollars of deposits is entirely different than being responsible for the $200 in a cash register drawer. It's different based on scale.

Criminal background and credit checks (not to mention drug testing) have become so pervasive in our society that it's really rather sickening.  We don't need our government to place us in a totalitarian prison, we are doing it to ourselves of our own accord. This is why technology like the internet is a double edged sword. Sure, it gives us freedom to find information, talk to people we wouldn't normally talk to, and ease many of our daily tasks like paying bills, but it also grants the same power to employers, the government, nosy watchdogs or any number of other people who want to peep into your life and control your actions and push you into conformity. Off the top of my head, I can pull up at least three news articles within the past two years of people being fired from their jobs because of their Facebook status message. It's all gone way too far.

Edit - A quick Google search reveals a helluva lot more than the three people I was thinking of. Wow.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-04-20 21:08:25)

mr.hrundi wrote:

anyone remember?

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6342/judenstern.jpg


I know it isn't the same, but it sure is a step in the same direction.

Are you really comparing Jews to Pedos?

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't think it's universally a good idea. Should banks be allowed to do background checks to filter out those with convictions in theft or fraud? Yes. Does your local Taco Bell need access to the criminal record of it's potential employees? Hardly. Being responsible for millions of dollars of deposits is entirely different than being responsible for the $200 in a cash register drawer. It's different based on scale.

Why is it always about money with you?
I'd prefer not to have a criminal in a position of responsibility preparing my food, thanks.

Criminal background and credit checks (not to mention drug testing) have become so pervasive in our society that it's really rather sickening.  We don't need our government to place us in a totalitarian prison, we are doing it to ourselves of our own accord. This is why technology like the internet is a double edged sword. Sure, it gives us freedom to find information, talk to people we wouldn't normally talk to, and ease many of our daily tasks like paying bills, but it also grants the same power to employers, the government, nosy watchdogs or any number of other people who want to peep into your life and control your actions and push you into conformity. Off the top of my head, I can pull up at least three news articles within the past two years of people being fired from their jobs because of their Facebook status message. It's all gone way too far.

Its not the govt doing it, its the consumer. Companies don't want criminals and drug users working for them due to liability issues.

Edit - A quick Google search reveals a helluva lot more than the three people I was thinking of. Wow.

So dumbfucks get fired. So?

Something which doesn't compromise other peoples safety, floor sweeper, front line infantry, thats it I guess.

The point is a company can check their record, if the conviction is irrelevant to the job the company can decide yay or nay, better than not knowing at all.

Well fine, we're done then.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

mr.hrundi wrote:

anyone remember?

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6342/judenstern.jpg


I know it isn't the same, but it sure is a step in the same direction.

Are you really comparing Jews to Pedos?

ehm, no. Thought it would be clear, but ok.
for further explanation, in Nazi-Germany Jews had to wear this yellow star on their clothes whereever they went.

So what I'm comparing are the procedures through which certain people are presented to the public. If the internet had existed 70 years ago, there would have been maps with little markers, showing where Jewish people lived.

tuckergustav wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

100% agreed, John.

The problem is... if you try explaining this to the average person, you'll get all kinds of bullshit responses back defending the registry.

Sorry man.  I've got a kid and I want to know if a child molestor has moved into the neighborhood.  If that's an average person bullshit response -so be it.  Pretty much once a pedo, always a pedo.

I agree.

Agreed as well, but it's "sexual offender" data base not a pedo data base

Dilbert_X wrote:

Something which doesn't compromise other peoples safety, floor sweeper, front line infantry, thats it I guess.

The point is a company can check their record, if the conviction is irrelevant to the job the company can decide yay or nay, better than not knowing at all.

If the conviction is irrelevant to the job, they don't need to know.

Turquoise wrote:

So you don't believe employers should be able to find out the past records of potential employees?

I'll chime in here..

Last year when I applied to become a civilian instructor at my old cadet squadron, part of the paperwork included an "Australian Federal Police Working With Children" background check. You have to sign this legal document stating you've done nothing, etc while simultaneously getting a national police check. While the police check costs money, it is up to the person applying for the job to pay for it. The results of that check are sent to your potential employer, who compares the two. Having previously signed a legal document, if you have lied at this point, you are fucked.

System works.

mcminty wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So you don't believe employers should be able to find out the past records of potential employees?

I'll chime in here..

Last year when I applied to become a civilian instructor at my old cadet squadron, part of the paperwork included an "Australian Federal Police Working With Children" background check. You have to sign this legal document stating you've done nothing, etc while simultaneously getting a national police check. While the police check costs money, it is up to the person applying for the job to pay for it. The results of that check are sent to your potential employer, who compares the two. Having previously signed a legal document, if you have lied at this point, you are fucked.

System works.

If you're working with children or are working as any form of governmental authority, I can see why that would be necessary.

I don't think it's necessary for jobs like being a janitor, cashier, fast food employee, etc.

I realize it might be a little strange how my stance is nuanced like this, but John brought up some good points.  The importance of the job (and its risk factors) should determine the thoroughness of the check.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-21 18:21:24)