Get Out the Violins or A Call For Immediate Violence

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

This is further compounded by the fact (and again, I'm looking for statistics on this) that while most of those victimized by pedophiles do not become pedophiles, almost without exception, pedophiles were themselves the victim of this crime at some time in their childhood.

This is the problem.  When people do not get the help they need, they either abuse children, or are attracted to people that do.  And the cycle repeats.  A lot of offenders never go to jail becuase they are protected by their families, unfortunately it is often their wives.  The whole thing is sad and tragic.  It is not like other violent crimes, it is a lot harder to get over.

[East Coast Hustle]

you are all apparently missing a very major point, which is that the girl was 16 years old, not 6.

that does not make one a pedophile, as pedophilia is defined as an attraction to pre-pubescent children. when I was in high school, I shagged my fair share of 16 year old girls, and not one of them was pre-pubescent. This is not a case of sexual assault we're talking about. hell, in lots of states (including Maine, Reverend what's-his-name) 16 is the legal age of consent. I'm not saying I think it's a great idea for 30-something year old men to go around shagging 16 year old girls, but if it's a crime, it's about on the same level as jaywalking and smoking pot in your house, provided the sex was consensual.

for someone to be required to register as a sex offender because he hit the boots a year too early is ridiculous.

[Bella]

I don't think I missed the point. Our current system isn't good enough. Under this system, people like the guy on this show are paying a very high price for something they did. Probably a disproportionate price. But until we find something better, it's important to protect victims and their families. And also provide enough structure to allow people getting out of jail to stay out of jail.

I do think that the sex offender registration laws should be re-written to more accurately reflect the nature of the crime.

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

If he was trying to buy a house next to a high school, I am glad he couldn't whether the sex was consensual or not.

edit: question, does level 1 sex offender include penetration, in other words, did they have intercourse, I forget

[gnimbley]

I have to agree with Turd. There is a quantitative difference between a
40 year old abusing a 12 year old, and a 20 something having sex with a
16 year old. (Since the guy referenced by the OP on the Today Show
is not in prison, it isn't fair to say that the "offense" occured some time
ago?) This can happen to guys 19 who have sex with girls who lie about
their age. It just seems to me that because the crime includes "sex,"
that is insufficient to condemn someone forever. I don't know the
circumstances of this case, obviously, so I do not want to defend or
accuse this particular person, but I believe there are instances where the
hysteria against "sex" has blindly destroyed people in order to achieve
some moralistic ideal which is anything but moral. People need to be
judged for what they are, not what labels society has hung on them.

[East Coast Hustle]

If he was trying to buy a house next to a high school, I am glad he couldn't whether the sex was consensual or not.

edit: question, does level 1 sex offender include penetration, in other words, did they have intercourse, I forget

I didn't realize you were such a puritan.

lemme ask you, when you were 16, did you ever hook up with any older guys? and if so, should they be ostracized by society for the rest of their lives for shagging you?

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

<apology for giant snip>
People need to be
judged for what they are, not what labels society has hung on them.

I agree for every offense except sex offenders.  That really is not an accurate description because it is not sex, it is assault with a sexual weapon.  Sometimes it involves such force that the person dies from the physical trauma of the assault.  And if they commit a crime again, there are very different consequences than if a shoplifter or a prostitute does.  I agree that the current system sucks, btw, but I also agree that 'sex' offenders need different treament than other offenders.

[East Coast Hustle]

THERE WAS NO SEXUAL ASSAULT WHATSOEVER IN THE CASE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!! Sweet fucking Jeebus, do you even bother to read anything before you post your drivel?

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

If he was trying to buy a house next to a high school, I am glad he couldn't whether the sex was consensual or not.

edit: question, does level 1 sex offender include penetration, in other words, did they have intercourse, I forget

I didn't realize you were such a puritan.

lemme ask you, when you were 16, did you ever hook up with any older guys? and if so, should they be ostracized by society for the rest of their lives for shagging you?

As far as intercourse goes, I was a virgin at 16

[East Coast Hustle]

don't argue semantics with me. did an older guy ever slip you the tongue? put his hand on your boob? grab your ass? anything even remotely sexual? did you mind terribly? should he be denied housing later in life because of it? fucking puritans really piss me off.

I CAUGHT LITTLE BILLY LOOKING AT BOOBS ON THE INTARWEB SO I MADE HIM GO TO HIS ROOM AND PLAY GRAND THEFT AUTO!
\

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

WTF?

I personally feel (not that anyone gives a fuck but hey) that some people are taking the whole thing a bit too far. I mean if someone has sex when they are 16 and the other person is older, WTF is the deal? If there was no coercion, then it is consensual. But I forget I live in PURITYRRANIA.

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

Does anyone have a link to the story?  I can't find it and since we don't even know what the guy did, it's kind of silly to be arguing about it?  I have been looking and I cannot find it.  All I can find is about a hundred pages of some new chick that is going to be on the Today Show starting this fall

[East Coast Hustle]

TRY READING THE ORIGINAL POST, YOU FUCKING RETARD.

fuck, you're dense!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

TRY READING THE ORIGINAL POST, YOU FUCKING RETARD.

fuck, you're dense!

Dang!

[gnimbley]

The  OP says this guy, who is in his late 30s, was convicted of having
sex with a 16 year old. Doesn't say how old he was when the offense
occurred, nor does it say if it was consensual. However, it is implied
that the sex was consensual since it was said he "had sex" and not
"raped." Also, since he had been convicted and is now living with a
wife, it can be assumed that the offense took place some time ago.

Beyond that, we don't know shit. But what difference does it make?
Since the crime involves sex, why don't we all just lynch the guy?