Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/7/2005 10:22:48 PM EDT
www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=104&sid=551557

Sex Offenders Banned From Storm Shelters

Updated: Sunday, Aug. 7, 2005 - 5:00 PM

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) - Sex offenders tracked by the state are banned from public hurricane shelters in Florida under a new policy that allows them to weather the storms in prison instead.

The policy was created to keep sex offenders and predators away from children, said Robby Cunningham, spokesman for the Department of Corrections. Offenders who go to a prison will stay in areas such as visitor or meeting rooms, he said.

"They are not incarcerated," Cunningham said Saturday. "We don't want them on the streets. We don't want them violating their probation either."

The policy only affects sex offenders under state supervision who are not allowed near children. They can go to a prison if their evacuation address given to authorities can't be used or is deemed unacceptable, Cunningham said. He did not know how many sex offenders could be affected.

The policy took effect at the beginning of hurricane season, June 1. Six offenders stayed in prisons during Hurricane Dennis in July.

Sex offenders have to sign a form that outlines instructions, wear an ID badge, and they can be searched by authorities at any time.

Randall Marshall, legal director of the Florida ACLU, said the policy could push sex offenders out of the supervision of authorities.

"If you take people who have served their sentence and are released from prison and try to (reinstate) themselves in society, the more steps you take to isolate and ostracize them ... there are very few options for them to live their lives and not reoffend," he said.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 10:27:36 PM EDT
Why not just shoot em instead of chancing that the hurricane will get them? We have one a block over that targets young boys, I have a 5 year old boy. When the cops passed the flyer to me I told them if I ever saw him on my block, they wouldn't need to worry about finding out what their ranger .40's would do, I have 16 of em in my gun and he'd catch a few and they could examine him to see what they did. If he's on my block he dies. Period. He has no buisness here, so if he's here, he must be in my yard messing with my kid. Or headed that way. Cop laughed and said "make sure he's in your yard I don't wanna take you to jail" and walked to the next house.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 10:28:51 PM EDT

Shit - why not just lock'em up for life or execute them and be done with it?

Link Posted: 8/7/2005 10:31:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Shit - why not just lock'em up for life or execute them and be done with it?




I agree. Because what they are doing this way is discrimination pure and simple. If they are a danger to society they should remain locked up. Otherwise ALL of an ex-prisoners rights should be restored.

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 10:31:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Why not just shoot em instead of chancing that the hurricane will get them? We have one a block over that targets young boys, I have a 5 year old boy. When the cops passed the flyer to me I told them if I ever saw him on my block, they wouldn't need to worry about finding out what their ranger .40's would do, I have 16 of em in my gun and he'd catch a few and they could examine him to see what they did. If he's on my block he dies. Period. He has no buisness here, so if he's here, he must be in my yard messing with my kid. Or headed that way. Cop laughed and said "make sure he's in your yard I don't wanna take you to jail" and walked to the next house.




www.criminalcheck.com


Go to the site and input your zip code. You'd be amazed at how many sex offenders live near you.

In my small city of 78,000, there are 18 sex offenders within five miles of my place.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 10:33:21 PM EDT
Arkansas state police lists them on their site also. I have 3 in my zipcode. Only one within 10 miles.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:42:37 AM EDT
WTF, if these people are still dangerous then they should be in prision or dead.

This hope for the best crap isan't working.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:53:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Shit - why not just lock'em up for life or execute them and be done with it?




I agree. Because what they are doing this way is discrimination pure and simple. If they are a danger to society they should remain locked up. Otherwise ALL of an ex-prisoners rights should be restored.

Sgat1r5



Abso-frickin-lutely.

Why are we releasing people that we feel are still a danger to society.

Either shoot them, keep them in jail, or let them out, no strings attached. We'd save a lot of money tracking people on parole this way too.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:01:22 AM EDT
"Tough Shit, Chester the Molester ..... Find somewhere else"
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:02:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HRoark:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Shit - why not just lock'em up for life or execute them and be done with it?




I agree. Because what they are doing this way is discrimination pure and simple. If they are a danger to society they should remain locked up. Otherwise ALL of an ex-prisoners rights should be restored.

Sgat1r5



Abso-frickin-lutely.

Why are we releasing people that we feel are still a danger to society.

Either shoot them, keep them in jail, or let them out, no strings attached. We'd save a lot of money tracking people on parole this way too.




Yeah, and kill a whole industry.........


I'm in 100% agreement. If we can't trust them, don't let them loose
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:12:53 AM EDT
I see in my crystal ball a faint image. It is............................

<­BR>

ACLU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:33:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 9:34:42 AM EDT by Tannim]

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
"Tough Shit, Chester the Molester ..... Find somewhere else"



The problem is that it's not just "Chester the Molester". These laws are a catch all.

www.sptimes.com/2005/08/06/State/Stormy_plan_for_sex_o.shtml


If one of the many storms predicted this hurricane season strikes Florida, John Lenihan plans to hunker down in his New Port Richey home. "I'm not going anywhere," he says.

But the state may find him a spot in prison.

Under a new policy, thousands of sex offenders on probation with the Department of Corrections are being notified they may have to report to a nearby prison during an evacuation.

"I'd rather be shot," said Lenihan who served three years in prison for having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend when he was 18. He remains on probation.

"I did my time," said Lenihan, now 23. "I'm never going back to prison. If someone hasn't committed new crimes, what's the basis for sending them to prison?"



I don't know the particulars on this, but it sounds like a high school kid goes to jail for sleeping with his high school girl friend. This did happen to someone I know. SO here are 2 "sex offenders" that will be locked in prison if a hurricane hits.

I'm against these laws unless they are used for bonafide violent sex offenders. Used against people like the one in this article and my friend, they are abusive.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:38:22 AM EDT
Have you people no humanity? No compassion for your fellow man? Aren't we all God's children deservig of love? .... But seriously, who the F**K cares if some slimeball child molester gets a house dropped on him like the Wicked Witch of the East in the Wizard of Oz because he wasn't allowed in a shelter. If the child molestor's need shelter, they ought to report to the local jail where they should have been in the first place.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:46:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
Have you people no humanity? No compassion for your fellow man? Aren't we all God's children deservig of love? .... But seriously, who the F**K cares if some slimeball child molester gets a house dropped on him like the Wicked Witch of the East in the Wizard of Oz because he wasn't allowed in a shelter. If the child molestor's need shelter, they ought to report to the local jail where they should have been in the first place.



Because it's not some "slimeball child molestor". These laws are over used and abused. And the sheeple are lapping it up because it's "for the children".

Once someone has served their time, they should be free. If they are dangerous, make the sentances life sentances.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:47:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Shit - why not just lock'em up for life or execute them and be done with it?




Too efficient. Too intelligent.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:58:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 10:00:54 AM EDT by Admiral_Crunch]

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
I agree. Because what they are doing this way is discrimination pure and simple. If they are a danger to society they should remain locked up. Otherwise ALL of an ex-prisoners rights should be restored.

Sgat1r5




That's a big +1 right there. I hate this quasi-citizen crap they're doing. They've taken their punishment and done their time. Either let them be full citizens again or make their sentences longer.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:59:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 10:02:44 AM EDT by gopeterson]

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
Have you people no humanity? No compassion for your fellow man? Aren't we all God's children deservig of love? .... But seriously, who the F**K cares if some slimeball child molester gets a house dropped on him like the Wicked Witch of the East in the Wizard of Oz because he wasn't allowed in a shelter. If the child molestor's need shelter, they ought to report to the local jail where they should have been in the first place.



Because it's not some "slimeball child molestor". These laws are over used and abused. And the sheeple are lapping it up because it's "for the children".

Once someone has served their time, they should be free. If they are dangerous, make the sentances life sentances.



I'm shocked that you would state that these laws are "over used and abused". The fact is that these laws were overly lax for decades and the weak laws allowed child molestors to keep getting out of jail with little time served. They would just repeat their same crimes against innocent children.

In my view child molestors should never be allowed to walk the streets again. There is just too much risk.

Your view is certainly in the minority and makes little or no sense.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:01:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
Have you people no humanity? No compassion for your fellow man? Aren't we all God's children deservig of love? .... But seriously, who the F**K cares if some slimeball child molester gets a house dropped on him like the Wicked Witch of the East in the Wizard of Oz because he wasn't allowed in a shelter. If the child molestor's need shelter, they ought to report to the local jail where they should have been in the first place.



Because it's not some "slimeball child molestor". These laws are over used and abused. And the sheeple are lapping it up because it's "for the children".

Once someone has served their time, they should be free. If they are dangerous, make the sentances life sentances.


Sorry, this isn't a perfect world. These people DO NOT change. Normally I'm just a punk ass kid talking out of my ass, but my wife is a therapist. So when it comes to mental health issues I tend to get a professionals view. Child molesters do not change, period. they may stop, for awhile, but they are still predators and have an EXTREMELY HIGH repeat offense rate.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:01:23 AM EDT
One more disincentive for those contemplating a sex crime.

I like it!

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:06:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
Have you people no humanity? No compassion for your fellow man? Aren't we all God's children deservig of love? .... But seriously, who the F**K cares if some slimeball child molester gets a house dropped on him like the Wicked Witch of the East in the Wizard of Oz because he wasn't allowed in a shelter. If the child molestor's need shelter, they ought to report to the local jail where they should have been in the first place.



Because it's not some "slimeball child molestor". These laws are over used and abused. And the sheeple are lapping it up because it's "for the children".

Once someone has served their time, they should be free. If they are dangerous, make the sentances life sentances.



I'm shocked that you would state that these laws are "over used and abused". The fact is that these laws were overly lax for decades and the weak laws allowed child molestors to keep getting out of jail with little time served. They would just repeat their same crimes against innocent children.

In my view child molestors should never be allowed to walk the streets again. There is just too much risk.

Your view is certainly in the minority and makes little or no sense.



The problem is that they are lumping everyone into the same pool. Some teen age kid that has consentual sex with his girlfriend ends up being imprisioned with a guy who rapes 12 year olds.

How long until we have a "Gun offender" registry? It's for the children!!

I remember when they only took drug dealer's cars... Now they can take and sell anyone's for any crime. You're pissing your freedoms away.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:10:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 10:11:33 AM EDT by gopeterson]

Originally Posted By Tannim:


The problem is that they are lumping everyone into the same pool. Some teen age kid that has consentual sex with his girlfriend ends up being imprisioned with a guy who rapes 12 year olds.

How long until we have a "Gun offender" registry? It's for the children!!

I remember when they only took drug dealer's cars... Now they can take and sell anyone's for any crime. You're pissing your freedoms away.



Your problem then is with the over inclusive definition of a child molestor -- not with the principle in general.

Your analogy to "gun offender" registery is ridiculous. The fact is that if you have committed a felony with a gun you should no longer be able to possess a gun. By the same token, if you molest children you should no longer have access to them.

No one's pissing away anyone's freedoms. Child molestors should not have freedoms in the first place.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:12:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:14:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Shit - why not just lock'em up for life or execute them and be done with it?




Because the vast majority of "sex offenders" (I strongly suspect) are the eighteen-year-old boys who got in trouble with their sixteen-year-old girl friends.

Shame on the ones responding negatively who were sexually active as a minor. SHAME.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:15:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Sorry, this isn't a perfect world. These people DO NOT change. Normally I'm just a punk ass kid talking out of my ass, but my wife is a therapist. So when it comes to mental health issues I tend to get a professionals view. Child molesters do not change, period. they may stop, for awhile, but they are still predators and have an EXTREMELY HIGH repeat offense rate.



I've seen this claim often, but I've seen very little research that bears it out. Most studies I've seen show that people convicted of sex crimes have an average lower recidivism rate than non-sexual criminals, including violent criminals.

Excerpt from one found in a quick Google search:

Hanson and Bourgon (2004) in a study of 31,216 sex offenders found that, on average, the observed sexual recidivism rate was 13%, the violent non-sexual recidivism was 14%, and general recidivism was 36.9%. Research has shown that the recidivism rates for sex offenders are much lower than for the general criminal population. In a 1983 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of 108,580 non-sex offender criminals released from eleven (11) states, observed that 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three (3) years of their release from prison and 41% were returned to prison.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:22:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Sorry, this isn't a perfect world. These people DO NOT change. Normally I'm just a punk ass kid talking out of my ass, but my wife is a therapist. So when it comes to mental health issues I tend to get a professionals view. Child molesters do not change, period. they may stop, for awhile, but they are still predators and have an EXTREMELY HIGH repeat offense rate.



I've seen this claim often, but I've seen very little research that bears it out. Most studies I've seen show that people convicted of sex crimes have an average lower recidivism rate than non-sexual criminals, including violent criminals.

Excerpt from one found in a quick Google search:

Hanson and Bourgon (2004) in a study of 31,216 sex offenders found that, on average, the observed sexual recidivism rate was 13%, the violent non-sexual recidivism was 14%, and general recidivism was 36.9%. Research has shown that the recidivism rates for sex offenders are much lower than for the general criminal population. In a 1983 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of 108,580 non-sex offender criminals released from eleven (11) states, observed that 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three (3) years of their release from prison and 41% were returned to prison.



Why don't you show them the whole story...


(http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C24.htm)...In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years)of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction).

Likelihood of Recidivism

The long term follow-up study referred to above included a control group of non-sexual criminals. The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offences, who selected boy victims outside the family and who were never married.

In general, rapists reoffend more often than child molesters.

Among child molesters, those with male victims have been found to have the highest recidivism rates, followed by those with unrelated female victims.



So 61%-77% isn't 'high'?

Bullshit!
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:27:52 AM EDT
Admiral Crunch must be a democrat.


Besides, people say they've served their time for their crime? No they haven't unless they are dead. Their is no sicker crime. And I guess its cause I'm in Arkansas and 16 is legal, but the majority of sex crimes here are sodomy, or straight up rape, child molestation, or the like. Either way, Certain crimes can be broken excuseably, Like seat belt laws. Show me a justification for fucking someone underage.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:37:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
Why don't you show them the whole story...


(http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C24.htm)...In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years)of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction).

Likelihood of Recidivism

The long term follow-up study referred to above included a control group of non-sexual criminals. The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offences, who selected boy victims outside the family and who were never married.

In general, rapists reoffend more often than child molesters.

Among child molesters, those with male victims have been found to have the highest recidivism rates, followed by those with unrelated female victims.



So 61%-77% isn't 'high'?

Bullshit!



I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying. That statistic is for the highest-risk sub-group of sex offenders, not all sex offenders. The chance of re-occurrance varies depending on the type of crime. Certain factors tend to increase the chance of repeat offense. Crimes against previously-unknown young boys are the highest-risk group, while incest-related crimes against known young girls are the lowest. My point is that taken as a whole, sex offenders are less likely to repeat-offend, which is what the study says. Selected high-risk offenders are another matter, and that should be taken into account when sentencing them.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:38:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 10:45:18 AM EDT by gopeterson]

Originally Posted By injun-ear:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Shit - why not just lock'em up for life or execute them and be done with it?




Because the vast majority of "sex offenders" (I strongly suspect) are the eighteen-year-old boys who got in trouble with their sixteen-year-old girl friends.

Shame on the ones responding negatively who were sexually active as a minor. SHAME.



That's ridiculous. Very rarely is an 18 year old boy locked up for having consensual sexual relations with a 16 year old girl. Statutory rape is one of the least prosecuted crimes.

ETA: Read the story closely. It refers to sex offenders tracked by the State. Most likely that refers to violent sex offenders and sex offenses against small children. If Florida is anything like Virginia then this would exclude people convicted of statutory rape such as your example of the 18 year old kid convicted for having consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:41:07 AM EDT
There are 3 in my zip code,

1. Incest
2. Incest
3. Sex abuse-1st degree, He targets young boys.

Next zip code over

1. Criminal sexual conduct-1st degree
2. Sexual Abuse
3.Promoting prostitution 1st degree
4. Sexual abuse 1st degree
5. Rape
6. Rape
7. Carnal Abuse-1st degree
8. Rape
9. Sexual misconduct
10. Sexual abuse-1st degree
11. Criminal attempt-rape
12. rape-repeat offense
13. rape
14. Incest, perp over 21-vic under 16
15. Sexual abuse 1st degree-repeat offender
16.Carnal abuse-1st degree
17. Sexual abuse-1st degree
18. Sexual abuse 3rd degree
19. sexual abuse 1st degree
20. sexual abuse 1st degree
21. sexual abuse 1st degree
22. Rape
23. carnal abuse 3rd degree.
24.Sexual abuse 1st degree.
25. Carnal abuse 3rd degree.-repeat offender
26. Sexual abuse-1st degree


One for sexual misconduct (statutory rape) Thats it. ONE of 29, doesnt qualify as most.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:42:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 10:43:31 AM EDT by Admiral_Crunch]

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Admiral Crunch must be a democrat.


You would be mistaken.



Besides, people say they've served their time for their crime? No they haven't unless they are dead. Their is no sicker crime. And I guess its cause I'm in Arkansas and 16 is legal, but the majority of sex crimes here are sodomy, or straight up rape, child molestation, or the like. Either way, Certain crimes can be broken excuseably, Like seat belt laws. Show me a justification for fucking someone underage.



So what you're saying is that punishments dictated by law don't fit your opinion of what they should be. If you believe that sex offenders deserve the death penalty and that seatbelt laws should be abolished, then you should petition your legislators to change the law.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:43:08 AM EDT
Like I said, someone please show me a justification for fucking a girl under 16 when your 18? PLEASE. I need a good laugh.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:46:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Like I said, someone please show me a justification for fucking a girl under 16 when your 18? PLEASE. I need a good laugh.



I don't believe anyone here has suggested that there is one, unless I missed something.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:46:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Admiral Crunch must be a democrat.


You would be mistaken.



Besides, people say they've served their time for their crime? No they haven't unless they are dead. Their is no sicker crime. And I guess its cause I'm in Arkansas and 16 is legal, but the majority of sex crimes here are sodomy, or straight up rape, child molestation, or the like. Either way, Certain crimes can be broken excuseably, Like seat belt laws. Show me a justification for fucking someone underage.



So what you're saying is that punishments dictated by law don't fit your opinion of what they should be. If you believe that sex offenders deserve the death penalty and that seatbelt laws should be abolished, then you should petition your legislators to change the law.



By the same token, if you believe that child molestors should not be excluded from shelters, as your earlier post suggests, then perhaps you should lobby the legislature to change the state's policy.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:49:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Admiral Crunch must be a democrat.


You would be mistaken.



Besides, people say they've served their time for their crime? No they haven't unless they are dead. Their is no sicker crime. And I guess its cause I'm in Arkansas and 16 is legal, but the majority of sex crimes here are sodomy, or straight up rape, child molestation, or the like. Either way, Certain crimes can be broken excuseably, Like seat belt laws. Show me a justification for fucking someone underage.



So what you're saying is that punishments dictated by law don't fit your opinion of what they should be. If you believe that sex offenders deserve the death penalty and that seatbelt laws should be abolished, then you should petition your legislators to change the law.



By the same token, if you believe that child molestors should not be excluded from shelters, as your earlier post suggests, then perhaps you should lobby the legislature to change the state's policy.



I don't live in Florida.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:54:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By gopeterson:

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Admiral Crunch must be a democrat.


You would be mistaken.



Besides, people say they've served their time for their crime? No they haven't unless they are dead. Their is no sicker crime. And I guess its cause I'm in Arkansas and 16 is legal, but the majority of sex crimes here are sodomy, or straight up rape, child molestation, or the like. Either way, Certain crimes can be broken excuseably, Like seat belt laws. Show me a justification for fucking someone underage.



So what you're saying is that punishments dictated by law don't fit your opinion of what they should be. If you believe that sex offenders deserve the death penalty and that seatbelt laws should be abolished, then you should petition your legislators to change the law.



By the same token, if you believe that child molestors should not be excluded from shelters, as your earlier post suggests, then perhaps you should lobby the legislature to change the state's policy.



I don't live in Florida.



Perhaps when all of the child molestors in Florida find out what a progressive state Georgia is they will move North.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:54:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Admiral Crunch must be a democrat.


You would be mistaken.



Besides, people say they've served their time for their crime? No they haven't unless they are dead. Their is no sicker crime. And I guess its cause I'm in Arkansas and 16 is legal, but the majority of sex crimes here are sodomy, or straight up rape, child molestation, or the like. Either way, Certain crimes can be broken excuseably, Like seat belt laws. Show me a justification for fucking someone underage.



So what you're saying is that punishments dictated by law don't fit your opinion of what they should be. If you believe that sex offenders deserve the death penalty and that seatbelt laws should be abolished, then you should petition your legislators to change the law.

People around here are generally ballsy enough to let sex offenders know if they come around they will be dealt with. May be a democratic state, but that's mostly for the farm policies. We also believe in southern justice. Our governer on the other hand is a traditional democrat so I wouldnt waste my time trying to get him to do anything good for the community.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:55:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Like I said, someone please show me a justification for fucking a girl under 16 when your 18? PLEASE. I need a good laugh.



Hey, I was 16 and she was 19 my first time. Just glad she didn't go to jail because it sure was fun.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:01:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
Perhaps when all of the child molestors in Florida find out what a progressive state Georgia is they will move North.



"Progressive" isn't the first word that comes to mind to describe Georgia.

(Cynthia McKinney-ville excluded, of course. )
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:03:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
There are 3 in my zip code,

1. Incest
2. Incest
3. Sex abuse-1st degree, He targets young boys.

Next zip code over

1. Criminal sexual conduct-1st degree
2. Sexual Abuse
3.Promoting prostitution 1st degree
4. Sexual abuse 1st degree
5. Rape
6. Rape
7. Carnal Abuse-1st degree
8. Rape
9. Sexual misconduct
10. Sexual abuse-1st degree
11. Criminal attempt-rape
12. rape-repeat offense
13. rape
14. Incest, perp over 21-vic under 16
15. Sexual abuse 1st degree-repeat offender
16.Carnal abuse-1st degree
17. Sexual abuse-1st degree
18. Sexual abuse 3rd degree
19. sexual abuse 1st degree
20. sexual abuse 1st degree
21. sexual abuse 1st degree
22. Rape
23. carnal abuse 3rd degree.
24.Sexual abuse 1st degree.
25. Carnal abuse 3rd degree.-repeat offender
26. Sexual abuse-1st degree


One for sexual misconduct (statutory rape) Thats it. ONE of 29, doesnt qualify as most.



Your data compells me to agree with you. But before I do, I like to know the meaning of the varying degrees of sexual abuse and carnal abuse in layman's terms. In your list, only "incest" is clearly understood by me.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:08:04 AM EDT
Arkansas is a weak state when it comes to prosecution the convictions for sex abuse are most likely rape with penetration being proven. IIRC Carnal abuse is "not quite lawful sex" ie she was drunk and regretted it. What is the law good for if not confusing names.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:19:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 11:20:20 AM EDT by gopeterson]

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Sorry, this isn't a perfect world. These people DO NOT change. Normally I'm just a punk ass kid talking out of my ass, but my wife is a therapist. So when it comes to mental health issues I tend to get a professionals view. Child molesters do not change, period. they may stop, for awhile, but they are still predators and have an EXTREMELY HIGH repeat offense rate.



I've seen this claim often, but I've seen very little research that bears it out. Most studies I've seen show that people convicted of sex crimes have an average lower recidivism rate than non-sexual criminals, including violent criminals.

Excerpt from one found in a quick Google search:

Hanson and Bourgon (2004) in a study of 31,216 sex offenders found that, on average, the observed sexual recidivism rate was 13%, the violent non-sexual recidivism was 14%, and general recidivism was 36.9%. Research has shown that the recidivism rates for sex offenders are much lower than for the general criminal population. In a 1983 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of 108,580 non-sex offender criminals released from eleven (11) states, observed that 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three (3) years of their release from prison and 41% were returned to prison.



The inherent flaw in comparing recidivism rates between violent sexual predators and a general recidivism rate is that violent sexual predators may be less likely to be caught -- not necessarily less like to commit crimes again. Some crimes are easier to detect that others.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:23:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Arkansas is a weak state when it comes to prosecution the convictions for sex abuse are most likely rape with penetration being proven. IIRC Carnal abuse is "not quite lawful sex" ie she was drunk and regretted it. What is the law good for if not confusing names.



So you quoted statistics that use terms unfamiliar to you, picked the term listed only once from that list, and assigned a definition to it that supports your opinion? ...And you're calling Admiral_Crunch a democrat?
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:26:47 AM EDT
no, I know the state used term for having otherwise consentual sex with an underage person. That's the only one I had to know to refute his point. Until you KNOW I don't know what I'm talking about, opening your mouth will only further expose your ignorance.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:29:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
no, I know the state used term for having otherwise consentual sex with an underage person. That's the only one I had to know to refute his point. Until you KNOW I don't know what I'm talking about, opening your mouth will only further expose your ignorance.




Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:29:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
The inherent flaw in comparing recidivism rates between violent sexual predators and a general recidivism rate is that violent sexual predators may be less likely to be caught -- not necessarily less like to commit crimes again. Some crimes are easier to detect that others.



But it doesn't seem right to base a policy on what someone might or might not have done that we just don't know about. It's like you're asking these people to prove that they haven't done anything, and that just goes against the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty philosophy.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:31:55 AM EDT
If you knew a man had once raped a 6 year old girl, and did his 2 or 3 years for it. Would you consider him reformed enough to be around YOUR 6 year old girl?
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:33:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
If you knew a man had once raped a 6 year old girl, and did his 2 or 3 years for it. Would you consider him reformed enough to be around YOUR 6 year old girl?



In a little bit son...The grown-ups are talking right now.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:38:52 AM EDT
awww how cute. a flamer, STFU I have better things to do than listen to someone run their mouth when their only intent is to insult people and not actually become involved in the subject matter at hand. bye bye now.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:40:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
The inherent flaw in comparing recidivism rates between violent sexual predators and a general recidivism rate is that violent sexual predators may be less likely to be caught -- not necessarily less like to commit crimes again. Some crimes are easier to detect that others.



But it doesn't seem right to base a policy on what someone might or might not have done that we just don't know about. It's like you're asking these people to prove that they haven't done anything, and that just goes against the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty philosophy.



The problem with your view is the people effected by this policy have already been convicted of molesting children. They have already shown a propensity to commit a horrible crime for which there is a high degree of recidivism -- even if the general recidivism rate may be higher.

By your logic, a person convicted of armed bank robbery should be permitted to possess a firearm upon release from prison. Most on this board, an in society in general, would agree that this makes no sense. Once you have been convicted of a crime you lose certain rights even if no longer incarcerated.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:44:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
By your logic, a person convicted of armed bank robbery should be permitted to possess a firearm upon release from prison. Most on this board, an in society in general, would agree that this makes no sense. Once you have been convicted of a crime you lose certain rights even if no longer incarcerated.



Why?

Why should they lose rights AFTER they pay their debt?

You don't continue paying interest to the bank after you pay off a loan do you?

If they think the person will re -offend then they should never be let out. If they are rehabilitated and payed their debt to society then ALL their rights should be restored.

They still have a right to protect themselves don't they?

Would you also support a law that if a person got multiple traffic tickets therir gun rights also be taken away since they have a high chance of reoccurance?

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:50:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
By your logic, a person convicted of armed bank robbery should be permitted to possess a firearm upon release from prison. Most on this board, an in society in general, would agree that this makes no sense. Once you have been convicted of a crime you lose certain rights even if no longer incarcerated.



Why?

Why should they lose rights AFTER they pay their debt?

You don't continue paying interest to the bank after you pay off a loan do you?

If they think the person will re -offend then they should never be let out. If they are rehabilitated and payed their debt to society then ALL their rights should be restored.

They still have a right to protect themselves don't they?

Would you also support a law that if a person got multiple traffic tickets therir gun rights also be taken away since they have a high chance of reoccurance?

Sgat1r5



Sgat1r5,

I have read many of your other posts, other than this thread, and find most of them driven by logic. The problem, however, with your expressed view in this case is the assumption that one's debt to society ends when their incarceration ends. Such is not the case. Other "prices" have long attached to convictions besides just incarceration. For instance, felons are not permitted to vote in Florida. As another example, felons can't hold certain government jobs. These are all ongoing "prices" for being convicted of a crime.

If you don't like the "prices" that attach to being convicted -- besides just pure incarceration -- then don't commit the crimes.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top