Rights for Sex Offenders....

[Evie]

Their right to privacy isn't the matter so much as their right to not have their life needlessly endangered.

Tossing this one off as an isolated one-shot event won'T help anyone.

 

[JohnRM]

Their right to privacy isn't the matter so much as their right to not have their life needlessly endangered.

Tossing this one off as an isolated one-shot event won'T help anyone.

Okay, I am convinced. We should change it to life imprisonment without parole or execution. Sound better? They should be happy with whatever freedom and life they have left.

 

[amadeus]

Better yet, deport them to a prison colony. They could then be as free as they want to be.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Okay, I am convinced. We should change it to life imprisonment without parole or execution. Sound better? They should be happy with whatever freedom and life they have left.

Who is they? All offenders? Including our now famous 19 year old with his 15 years 11 month old girlfriend? Certainly there needs to be room for nuance.

Unless of course you are one who believes any infraction of the law is immediate life in jail, but you come off as more mature than that.

 

[Evie]

As I said, John, you need to strike a balance between teh right of various people.

Your right to have constant access to the current location of someone who served their time doesn't strike me as particularly obvious, unless that information is of particular use in your line of work (ie, police stuff, or to run background checks on people before putting them in sexual offense risky jobs (teachers, etc)

 

[superisis]

Better yet, deport them to a prison colony. They could then be as free as they want to be.

how about Siberia?

 

[Abaddon]

The only right a sex offender should have is to have their "bits" cut off.

 

[garric]

Child molestors forfeited their rights when they commited their misdeed.

 

[Evie]

So sad for you (and so fortunate for society and level-headed people), the people who created the justice system weren't frothing at the mouth.

 

[Che Guava]

There were a few questions on how sex offerder registries work in different states. I found this piece from the Boston Globe site that might make a more complete picture:

Maine killings raise questions about sex offender registries

CORINTH, Maine - A man who shot two sex offenders to death in Maine got their names from the state’s online sex offender registry, authorities said Monday, renewing fears that such lists expose ex-convicts to vigilante violence.

The gunman, Stephen A. Marshall, a 20-year-old from Canada, committed suicide Sunday night in Boston after being cornered aboard a bus by police.

Investigators were uncertain what relationship, if any, Marshall had with the two victims, who were killed Easter Sunday morning at their homes 25 miles apart.

[...]

The Web site was disabled while police searched for Marshall but was restored Monday afternoon.

“The Web site is back on. It is there by law. The reason why the information is available to the public is well-documented,” McCausland said. The sex offender registry is designed to let people know of child molesters and other sex offenders in their midst.

All states have sex offender registries and almost all of them post the information online.

But the killings added to a growing unease with such Web sites. Jack King from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Washington said making public sex offenders’ addresses can be an invitation to violence.

Harassment, vandalism, assaults and even killings of sex offenders have been reported from coast to coast.

“There are going to be crazy people out there,” King said. “And there’s going to be vigilantism.”

After New Jersey passed a public disclosure law on sex offenders in the 1990s, the brother of an offender was nearly beaten to death with a baseball bat when he was mistaken for his brother, King said.

In New Hampshire, Lawrence Trant went to prison after pleading guilty to the attempted murder of two convicted sex offenders whose names and addresses he found on an Internet registry posted by the state



A sex offender Web site in Washington state was cited in the slayings of two convicted child rapists last summer. Michael Anthony Mullen, 35, pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to more than 44 years in prison.

[...]

Maine’s Web site has the names of more than 2,200 sex offenders. It contains such information as the offender’s name, address, date of birth, identifying characteristics and place of employment, as well as a photograph. Depending on the crime, the offender is required to register either for 10 years or for life.

In Washington state, the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office posts a warning on its registry under the heading “Vigilantism - Zero Tolerance,” urging people not to use the information to harass offenders.

Carlos Cuevas from the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire said more research is needed into the effectiveness of sex offender registries. “Is it effective in lowering the rates of child victimization?” he asked.

[...]

I cut out most of the pieces on the actual case, since most of those are explained in the OP. Hoope this might shed a little light.

 

[bhsup]

The obvious solution is to give all people who commit sex offenses that would land them on these lists a lifetime sentence with no chance of parole. That way, they will never harm another innocent outside of those jail walls and they also won't be accessible by vigilantes.

 

[Che Guava]

Not to downplay the seriousness of the charge, but would something like statuatory rape really be worth a life in jail?

 

[bhsup]

If one can't do the time, don't do the crime. Basically, if that's the sentence that's on the books, a person has nobody to blame but themselves for knowingly going ahead and doing the deed which gets them that sentence.

So, to answer your question, I guess the person who knowingly commits statutory rape, with life in prison as the punishment for it, would consider it worth life in prison.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Privacy rights go straight down to nill when you get convicted of a sex crime. So I've heard and seen, there was a site that listed the crime, and the exact location of their house. This site could almost get charged with stalking they've got so much info about them.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

So much frothing at the mouth...

 

[Che Guava]

If one can't do the time, don't do the crime. Basically, if that's the sentence that's on the books, a person has nobody to blame but themselves for knowingly going ahead and doing the deed which gets them that sentence.

So, to answer your question, I guess the person who knowingly commits statutory rape, with life in prison as the punishment for it, would consider it worth life in prison.

You treat every offender like a hardened criminal with ful knowledge of the law. I knew someone in high school that ended up getting into trouble for the same reason as one of the men who was killed: They were 19 and had a girlfriend that was just under 16. In this case, they couldn't prove that any sexual misconduct had been perpetrated, but what if they had slept together and there was proof? Does that mean that this 19-year-old who made an error in judgement should spend the rest of his life in prison, even though there's veriatully no chance that he will re-offend?

 

[superisis]

Not to downplay the seriousness of the charge, but would something like statuatory rape really be worth a life in jail?

seeing as with the "three strikes" olicy one can get life for stealing a bicycle, I'd guess it'd be in tune.

If one can't do the time, don't do the crime. Basically, if that's the sentence that's on the books, a person has nobody to blame but themselves for knowingly going ahead and doing the deed which gets them that sentence.

So, to answer your question, I guess the person who knowingly commits statutory rape, with life in prison as the punishment for it, would consider it worth life in prison.

Can't that argument be used for promoting life sentences/capital punishments for all crime?

"You knew that you'd get beheaded for driving under the influence, so apparently it was worth it."

 

[Che Guava]

seeing as with the "three strikes" olicy one can get life for stealing a bicycle, I'd guess it'd be in tune.

But that's exactly what the '3 strikes' is all about: two chances to make a mistake....

 

[bhsup]

Obviously there must be reason within the law, which is one reason we do indeed have judges. Law, tempered by wisdom. A 19 year old with a 16 year old probably shouldn't fall under "statutory rape" conditions...probably not. Quite frankly, that's always the counter-argument I hear regarding statutory rape, but I'm personally talking about the blatant cases, like a 40 year old and a 15 year old.

However, all of that aside, if the law indeed is no 19 year olds with 15 year olds, then obey the law and there will be no issues. I simply do not ever accept from adults "it was just a mistake, I got carried away in the heat of passion" or any other excuse which attempts to flush personal responsibility down the drain.

"You knew that you'd get beheaded for driving under the influence, so apparently it was worth it."

It would probably cut down on drunk driving...

 

[Masquerouge]

The only right a sex offender should have is to have their "bits" cut off.

Problem is, sex offenders are not always the "rape young boys" kind.

It's pretty sickening that most of the reactions in this thread are ultra-violent against the "sex offenders".
It is sickening because it is exactly how a mob reacts, and ends up burning some funny-looking woman on accounts of witchcraft.

What's next, cutting the hand of thieves ? Stoning women who cheated on their husband ?

Sex offenders can technically be a 16-year old girl sleeping with a 15 and a half boy. Would you still advise cutting that girl's "bits", Slozenger ?

Here's a hint : most sane people will usually not accuse you of being a coward/wuss/girly man if you act in a rational, balanced way instead of yelling "Kill him !"