Sex Offenders


Registered Senior Member
Should the identity of those who have a history of sexually abusing children be disclosed to the community?

There is a known sex-offender who has been approaching children attending a particular elementary school in the area. That is all the information given by the local police. Should the offender's description, picture, name, age, address, etc... be disclosed to the parents so that they can better inform their young children of the danger involved by associating with this individual in particular?
As far as I know, the Canadian public is told about sex offenders in their community. I can recall multiple cases where sex offenders have tried to settle into quiet lives in rural Alberta towns, only to be forced out by hostility from townspeople.

This is how it should be, in my opinion. There's no reason to protect these criminals.

[This message has been edited by DaveW (edited November 02, 1999).]
Under no circumstances should this become standard policy, to disclose the names of sex offenders who have already been through the penal system.

On one hand, their names are already known as sex offenders; their arrest and trial are part of the public record--well, at least among the United States. To announce their arrival in a community seems, given the reactions of modern, civilized persons, to be furthering their punishment in a manner outside the US Constitution.

There is a factor I'm reluctant to introduce here, because it is a process of hysteria, and based on an assumption. The assumption is that these sex offenders are somehow more dangerous to society than other kinds of criminals. Perhaps. But potheads, poets, and priests have all been deemed more dangerous than your average pickpocket or murderer at various points in history. Does this mean we need to trump every drug offender the way we want to treat the sex offenders? And that is the hysteria part of it: how far can it go--will we be announcing embezzlers, drug dealers, and so forth?

I also have a problem with this idea because in many of the cases, the difference between a "sex offender" and a "regular joe" is the idea of "getting caught". There are definitely sex crimes. And then there is an ambiguous zone, as well. And it's these offenders that I worry about. In my life I've seen child rapists turned loose because "nobody heard the child protesting", or "the child behaved promiscuously (at age 3)". But I've also seen good men strung up before the public for making mistakes. Besides, given the various laws regarding sexual acts, a registered sex offender could be a child rapist or someone who wanted his wife to give him fellatio (you'll notice that, when cunninlinguis is the question in these states, the man is still arrested.)

As much as various crimes bug me, I'm often left to wonder about society's reaction. They love to punish sex crimes, but they don't want to educate about sexuality. We fear for our children's sexuality, but encourage a perverse pop-culture that has us accepting 12 year-old girls as sexually attractive in order to hawk perfume to 60-year old women.

So I'm left to ask a number of questions:
* Does "sex offenders" include prostitutes and their johns?
* What is the point of a penal system if it's left to society to actively prevent a convict's reintegration to society?
* If the penal system is pointless and it is society's job to actively frustrate convict reintegration, why are we paying public funds for prisons?

In the United States, we have a specific Constitutional provision which restricts "cruel and unusual punishments, excessive fines and bails". Since we're all guilty of crimes daily in this country, it's probably not a good idea to start trumping up peoples sins this way. They're already on the record: if Mom & Dad don't care enough about their kids to watch that portion of the record, we certainly don't need to go out of our way to fuel these peoples' otherwise apathetic rage.

There is a crime, there is a trial, a verdict, and a sentence. End of story. Elsewise, the courts are really just a feelgood exercise in futility.


"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
surpise, surpise. In California all convicted sex offenders in your area can be known by simply asking the police. Some have even gone as far to suggest that signs be put up in front of their homes. This is a good idea. I say fuck em.
I also think that imprinting sex offenders with a scarlet letter for life is excessive punishment.

If it's a reformable behavior, then what is the point of punishing people when they have already passed through their sentence, and (hopefully) reformed themselves?

If it's a clinical condition, then what is the point of punishing mental patients who can't help their urges? If they are indeed pathological, sex offenders should be confined to mental institutions, as are all mentally ill people who either can't sustain themselves, or present a danger to society.

In addition, Tiassa has a good point on the ever-present seething ocean of public hysteria, subdued most of the time, but always ready to be unleashed with the slightest prodding.

I am; therefore I think.
Sex offenders should have their genitalia ripped off. Repeat sex offenders should be gang-raped by homosexual horses and THEN have their genitalia ripped off. Sex offenders of any sort who go after children should be gang-raped by homosexual horses while being spanked by a sadistic monkey and THEN have their genitalia ripped off. Anybody who is INTO this sort of thing should be shot.


Good show. Now, imagine the sex offender is a member of <u>your</u> family (an offspring of yours, perhaps, like a son). And don't even tell me that it would never happen to *you*, because nobody is in full control over other people or their hidden desires.

I am; therefore I think.
Ok, what if that sex offender raped your daughter or a loved one??????????
Why protect the criminal????? You think this is excessive punishment??? What of the victims baggage that is left that they have to deal with which was caused by the very dude you want to protect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You honestly think that in a year or so it will be all forgotton on the vitims part? You think this would not effect them in every
possible way???????????
Something is just not right when we look out for the person who did the dirty deed and
forget about the welfare of other future

I agree with you all the way! I think that they should super glue the dudes nasty dick to the a bomb in the room..give him a butcher knife with all of
45 seconds to decide if he wants to be blown sky high or escape!

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited November 03, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited November 03, 1999).]

Do you live in the US? If so, thank you for demonstrating the exact reason we have Constitutional provisions against excesses in the application of justice. What do we gain from that kind of savagery except the satisfaction that we are somehow better than a mutilated corpse?

What happens, say, if the offender is a Catholic priest? Do we rape him with horses and cut off his genitalia inside the church?

Oh, wait a minute ... we could take all of the speeders and DUI convicts and run them over with trucks, but only after slicing out their tongues, pouring acid into their bellies, and ripping their livers out with a coathanger.

Ooh, and we could put unconscientious tobacco users on the stake and burn 'em burn 'em burn 'em!

I'm generally glad to live in the United States. I think our Constitution and its Amendments are among the Union's greatest assets. Unfortunately for some of our "better than thou" brethren, that means we can't exactly revert to the middle ages and just throw people on the rack again.

I might remind all here that definitions of sex crimes are ludicrously inadequate. When I was in college in '93, we heard about a policy at a school on the east coast where each "stage" of the sexual encounter must be queried by the male and approved by the female. "Yes" is the required answer. "Do you mind if I unhook your bra?" "No, I don't mind." Guess what .... unhook that bra, and you're a sex offender.

Yeah, let's tear that poor sot's balls off and feed them to the righteous dogs.


"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
According to the local police, the individual in the real-life example above, in the US, has a history of sexually abusing young children.

Many judges are now bcoming more enlightened to the fact that there is no cure for pedophilia and many are aware of the extreme difficulty in treating criminal pedophiles adequately so that they pose no inherent danger to children in our society. As a result, many judges are now leaning towards prohibiting criminal pedophiles, as a condition of their release, from ever having contact with children within the preferred victim age of the particular pedophile, and many judges are also ordering continued lifetime therapy for those afflicted with the disease. This approach might not please everyone... It might even seem like a lifetime sentence to some, however, considering the extreme difficulty which criminal pedophiles have in controlling their urges and the resulting danger to defenseless young children in our society, I find such an approach to be a reasonable compromise.

In the particular case above, it seems that such restrictions were not a term of this criminal pedophile's release and he/she is currently active in approaching young children in the same age group of previous victims. Due to the lack of restrictions upon this criminal pedophile's release, supposedly there is nothing that can be done legally until he/she actually hurts another child. Given the fact that no continued therapy was ordered, law enforcement officials consider it only a matter of time before another child is victimized and so they have issued a general warning to parents in the community. Knowing what we now do about criminal pedophilia, should parents in this particular community be chastised in their effort to obtain information about the local criminal pedophile to fulfill their legal obligation to protect their young children when the courts have failed, albeit perhaps, due to lack of information/education on the part of the particular judge in the case? Without such information, in an effort to protect, the freedom of the young children of this community and their families will be severely restricted.

Is this restriction of the freedom of an entire community of young children and their families necessary and is it equitable to impose such restrictions in an effort to protect the privacy of the criminal pedophile? Who knows where he/she came from? How would one go about searching the public records? He/she could could have migrated from anywhere...

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 03, 1999).]

Are we assuming that "known sex offender" means "child rapist"? In this case, the lack of restrictions on contact with minors is either a direct fault of the court that sentenced him, or else a technicality that arises when we apply broad terms like "known sex offender". What was this person's original crime?

Normally, I would say yes, the police should move forward if a "known child rapist" is attempting contact with children. But for that to work, we need to include such language in the sentence.

In the example you've given, as to the question of whether parents should be "chastised" in their efforts to "protect their young children", I'm inclined to ask if every resource of the public record has been exhausted. Although people keep coming back to it, it's important: the information already exists in the public record. So it seems that, on the one hand, yes, parents care; on the other, they don't care so much to go even slightly out of their routine to get the information. They want it spoon-fed to them by the government.

One of the operating realities here is that, among the United States, at least, Justice is supposed to be blind. Much like every sin weighs the same with God, so must it be with Justice. Certes, we have varying sentences reflecting the perceived severity of the crime, but when a sentence is ended, a sentence is ended. Lifetime therapy for a pedophile is no different as a "sentence" than lifetime therapy for a paranoid-schizophrenic arsonist. When it's appropriate, it's appropriate. But the American mass psychology is that of a vigilante. People often go out of their way to aggravate a bad situation.

What freedom is being restricted entire communities? Where I live, that concept flies in the face of true liberty. To suspend the freedom of a given minority element to appease the majority is a horrible concept that has been counterproductive to social progression. And here comes the near-paradox: It is not illegal to have pedophilic emotions; as sick as it sounds, that state of mind is not against the law. It is the act itself, committed unto another person. History shows you cannot write a perfect exception to an imperfect principle. If we make that particular mode of thinking illegal, then all thought is, by precedent, subject to judicial and legislative approval. If we remove the repugnance of the subject matter, say, change it to armed robbery, what then? Should it be illegal to consider--merely consider--the possibility of gathering funds via the bullet? Should it be illegal to feel that a given group, labeled "terrorist", might have a point? Should it be illegal to deal with your own demons?

With freedom comes responsibility. Unfortunately, that responsibility means you have to go out of your way sometimes. Certain crimes are the result of societal climate; by that I mean that various horrors are the natural byproduct of human society. Preferably, I would rather find the device that creates such widespread pedophilia, but the root of the problem, I'm sure, would scare us all into denial. Actually, to be honest, I believe it already has. We can go on "protecting" our children from from a menacing spectre, or we can slay, wound, cripple, or otherwise disable the most part of the spectre's ability to function.

We can't stop every child rapist--unless of course, we want to steal children from their parents and raise them with robots. But we can figure out what, within society, is causing so many people to fail to reconcile the conflicts that motivate their unacceptable behavior. Maybe we can hobble the process.

But I still think advertising a duck pond to a bloodthirsty society of hunters is just a bad, bad idea.


"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

According to the local police, the individual in the real-life example above, in the US, has a history of sexually abusing young children.

The individual in question has previously been convicted of perpetrating sexual abuse upon children (multiple). Sorry, I don't have the gory details to share with you and the legal system rarely uses the term "rape" with regards to sexual crimes committed against young children. I don't know why, though, because in almost all or these cases involving young children an adult "force" is at work. What more do you need to know?

Although I would not expect you to answer this, I am wondering if you have any children, any maternal/paternal instincts or even any idea of what it takes to protect your young in this day and age? Please inform us - In what way does a concerned parent go about "exhausting" the public record? How long does the "exhaustion" process take? How often does one go through this process? Annually? Semi-annually? Monthly? Weekly? Daily? How do you go about getting information about convicted child sexual predators who committed their criminal acts prior to the onset of the registration requirements?

At first you indicate that parents care in a way, yet you go on to say:

...they don't care so much to go even slightly out of their routine to get the information. They want it spoon-fed to them by the government.

Where does this statement come from? You think you "know" what efforts the parents in this community have/haven't made? It sounds like more of the negative stereotypical generalizations which seem to abound in your posts lately.

There is no one in fear of someone else's "thoughts" be they those of a pedophile or otherwise. There is no "thought" police at work here, Tiassa. Where you got that idea, I'm sure I'll never know.

The concern of law-enforcement in the area is that this person is in the process of acting out and, without psychological counselling or legal restrictions against contact with young children, experience tells them that it is only a matter of time before another child is victimized by this person. Minimize it as much as you want, Tiassa, and turn the "parents" into blood-thirsty hunters in your mind if it somehow makes you feel better. Please keep in mind, though, that it is not the parents who are interested in the "hunt," it is their children who are the prey and whom they are trying to protect.
tiassa- Have you ever been raped? Do you KNOW what it feels like to have someone invade your body so violently, deaf to, and probably getting excited by, your screams of protest? Have you ever had someone else's sperm spat out inside your body, knowing that you will NEVER be clean of the vileness now within you? Have you ever had something shoved up a bodily orifice where it simply shouldn't be? Have you ever experienced any of these sensations? How far has anyone gone down YOUR throat while you cried, gagging on semen while they laughed? Do you know the feeling? Do you?

I hope you can stay on your high horse (homosexual or not) and never be dragged into it. Never mind. I hope someday you feel the shame and disgust of this experience. May you feel all of the violation. Then let's see how forgiving and civil you are.
Boris- If the offender was a member of my family, I'd go get the horses and the monkey. I don't put up with that sort of crap from anybody. I'd rather they were dead than have that sort of disease living and associated with me.

I am not so blinded by my fury to think that my family is somehow perfect. If they were, I'd be posting their activities in the Paranormal forum.
Flash- Thank you. That's a lovely idea. If I can hunt one of the bastards down, do you want to bring the super-glue, the knife, or the bomb?
Tiassa, and Boris,

Our Constitution and its Amendments are a great assest but easily misinturpited. For example the 2nd. amendment the wording is clear but yet it's meaning is twisted to no end. On top of that it stated that these amendments are not to be changed or removed but yet there has already been talk of changing the entire Constitution.

As for cruel and unusual punishment. I don't see it as such! The victims had no choice and the perpetrator decided to change the lives of both parties for ever. He/she should be forced to be tormented with his choice of action for the same length of time!

If he was a member of my family I still feel the same. As a matter of fact one was a member of my family. One of my Uncles was child molester and the rest of the family covered up for him by never speaking of his actions. Even though they knew of this they chose to do nothing. I never had the misfortune of being alone in the same room as him becuase my mother allways kept me at her side when he was around, but chose do nothing more. I was the one who finally stood up called the police and gave them his current address and phone number. Thankfully the bastard never saw the light of day again and was murdered while in prison! :)

Our current statutes are not perfect. You point this out for us Tiassa. The definition for a sexual offender is way to loose. In fact need to be broken down into categories. So that it is much clearer of which sex crime they commited. The fact that one can do jail time for unhooking a gal's bra when her reply was "I don't mind" is absolutely ludicrous!!!

The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born
LOL...Tell ya what..I'll bring all three!
I just cannot believe some of the responses in this thread!

Hey, I didn't mean to put a thumbs down!
That was suppose to have been a thumbs up!!
My fault...sorry :)

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited November 04, 1999).]
You done good, 666. :)

Years ago, a young family member was drugged and then raped by a repeat "offender"... Although the physical evidence was available, because of the drugs, the police determined that the victim could not give a clear account on the witness stand and decided not to go forward with the case. Another family member, who was schooled in martial arts, came across the known "offender" unexpectedly one night in the men's room of a local restaurant and proceeded to beat the "offender" to near death. The offender spent quite a bit of time "recovering" in the hospital, never turned the "beater" in because he knew who he was and why he beat him. The offender was subsequently tried and convicted and is doing time for another sexual offense. Was the beating in the bathroom "right"? Legal?... No. It certainly was somewhat cathartic though and helped the victim and a number of family members to get on with their lives.
What comes around goes around in some form or another. You may not see it as right TS..but at least the guy got some punishment out of it... actually, he got off lucky.
You might be right, Flash. Actually, according to the "beater" he was about to administer the "death blow" when a friend with whom he was dining heard the commotion, entered the rest room, saw what was going on (but he didn't know why) and swiftly escorted the family member off the premises. Who knows...? Maybe an early death would have been too good for the rapist?

Let's think about this... Perhaps what he was dishing out is now coming back to him in prison?

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 04, 1999).]