Principia Discordia

Okay, so I'm watchin the Today Show.  I watch it mostly for the weather and Al Roker's corny jokes.  Damn, they had some scrub in for Al for the weather.  Anyhoo.....

So Lauer is interviewing this guy and his wife.  The guy is a convicted level 1 sex-offender.  They are being interviewed after this piece they just ran about sex-offenders and how some states are strenghening their statutes concerning such offenses.  

So, again, the guy is a level 1 sex-offender.  He was convicted for having sex with a 16-year old.  This guy's in his late 30's so he was definitely doing something he knew was against the law.  So, he and his wife are bitching and moaning because they want to move into a bigger house but are having a "difficult time" because he is registered as a sex-offender.  A level-1 offender apparently is the lesser of the 3 levels.  I think it's along the same lines of the Mary Kay whatever her name is.  Anyway, just by virtue of being a convicted sex-offender he must be registered and so there are limits to where he can live.  (e.g. not near schools, daycares, etc.)  So they are upset with these restrictions.  They feel it is unfair that their life has to be so difficult because of all this.

Well, jeebus christ none of this would have happened if Mr. Creepo would've kept it in his pants.  Holy mother of pearl who gives a fuck about your so-called plight!  You assaulted a 16-year old girl.  Oh, okay so you want a medal for not being Jeffrey Dahmer?  If I were the father of this girl you would be doing a dirt dance with the worms.  You know what the so-called American Dream (if it even exists) is generally reserved for those who don't screw little girls.  It's called dealing with the fucking consequences.  Congratulations, you did your time!  You gave in to your inner demons once.  So society is supposed to take your word that you're not going to do it again?  Nope pal, it doesn't work that way.  That's why you are a registered sex-offender.  So quit your bitchin.  

Oh, by the way.  Stay the hell away from Maine.  Because there's at least one person in this state ready to welcome you with open arms.  I'm thinking a battle-axe and a blowtorch.   :twisted:

The theory of the penal system is that if you are convicted, you are punished by going to jail, and after your get out, you have "paid your debt to society", and theoretically are not supposed to be judged by being an ex-con.  Then some politician gets the bright idea that federal offenses should ban that person from some government jobs.

and now this.

Look, if you think that child molesters aren't going to be rehabilitated by prison, and that their debt to society is somehow not paid, then why the fuck do they go to prison in the first place? Perhaps rapists, etc should have a mandatory life prison sentance?  or maybe they should be put to death?


Now, I'm not eric-- i'm not advocating that child rape is a good thing.  I'm just asking what appropriate rehabilitation would be.

At what point would you be convinced that a convicted rapist wouldn't re-offend?



::puts on flame-resistant coat::

Biggest problem is that there is a 0% rehabilitation rate with Pedophiles, if they've done it once they are pretty much certain to do it again as soon as they have the chance (in my opinion we should put their genitals in a plastic shredder...).

Some of the estatual rape stuff is a little bit iffy; some seventeen year olds are mature enough, while some aren't.  But, I don't think I'd change it.

The biggest problem with sexual crimes is that most people who commit them have repeat offenses after leaving prison.

Quote from: Zurtok Khan
The biggest problem with sexual crimes is that most people who commit them have repeat offenses after leaving prison.

...Which would make the whole notion of treating pedophelia the same as burglury kind of stupid, wouldn't it?

Again, if there's a 0% rehab rate (I think you're exaggerating, but not by much), why put them into the penal system?

I'm all for a public hanging.  Perhaps that will "rehabilitate" rapists.  Or at least convince them to just rape themselves and leave other sentient beings alone.

You're funny, thinking the death penalty has ever prevented crime.

I laugh now.

Okay, I just threw that in so it didn't look I just wanted to kill rapists for the sake of killing rapists.  I know it won't really affect anyone else but at least that particular one won't hurt anybody again.  Well, he may poison a couple of worms.

it
s a penal system, not a prevental system.

And actually causing the death of a rapist or sex-offender does prevent that individual from offending again.  You can chemically castrate them but that doesn't affect their mind.  They still have the ability to cause some form of physical harm to another victim.  Nope, off with their head.  Better yet, we should build a new Colliseum and resurrect the Roman sport of feeding them to the lions!

Did you ever stop to think that the reason that the re-offending rate for sexually based crimes is so low compared to other crimes is because prison is the wrong answer?

Or that there may be ways to ensure a rapist doesn't do it again (other than death), and we are all brainwashed that prison is the only answer to crime?

I know you're just taking the piss at this point, but i sort of want you to try & think this through.

Quote from: LMNOAt what point would you be convinced that a convicted rapist wouldn't re-offend?

I, personally, would be much more convinced that a convicted rapist might not offend, than I would be that a convicted pedophile would not re-offend. That's because I feel that pedophilia is often a sexual orientation, while rape is more of a power issue. But then, I'm not convinced that any criminal isn't going to re-offend.  I also feel that the system we have right now isn't working, but  haven't got any workable ideas on how to make it better. Prison obviously isn't the best choice.  In my opinion, the best thing we can do until we find a new system, is continue to make crime a matter of public record and give potential victims and/or their parents the information they need to keep themselves and their families safe.

And as for rehabilitating criminals in prison, the justice system has learned the hard way that this doesn't work unless those released from prison are given tools and/or structure once they get back into society. That's the point of probation and parole, and laws that limit sex offenders from moving to houses in the immediate vicinity of schools. It provides structure and gives the offender a much better chance of success. The whole point of rehabilitation is to help people do better in the future. Which in turn keeps the rest of us safer.


Here are some statistics on sex offenders from the Department of Justice:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex

Sex Offenders

* Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense ,Äì,Äì 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

* Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison ,Äì,Äì 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

* On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.

* The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.

* An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.

* Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.

* Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.

Child victimizers

* Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.

* Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, 60% had been in prison for molesting a child 13 years old or younger.

* Offenders who had victimized a child were on average 5 years older than the violent offenders who had committed their crimes against adults. Nearly 25% of child victimizers were age 40 or older, but about 10% of the inmates with adult victims fell in that age range.

Well, zurtok,

Quote from: the statsSex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison ,Äì,Äì 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

* Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.

I stand corrected.  According to these numbers, rather than your 0% rate of "never to rape again", and my "slightly higher", the rate is apparently 94.7% and 96.6% for offenders released who do not re-offend.

I guess our estimates were a little off.

Quote from: LMNOWell, zurtok,

Quote from: the statsSex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison ,Äì,Äì 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

* Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.

I stand corrected.  According to these numbers, rather than your 0% rate of "never to rape again", and my "slightly higher", the rate is apparently 94.7% and 96.6% for offenders released who do not re-offend.

I guess our estimates were a little off.

Yup. But there's more to be taken into account here. The problem with repeat sex-offenders is that they normally have a very high victim to offender ratio. I'm still looking for stats on that, but I learned in victim advocate training that one pedophile may victimize upwards of 200 children during his or her lifetime. Same with serial rapists - although their numbers are lower. So while sex offenders aren't as likely to re-offend, those who do re-offend can do a lot of damage to a lot of people.

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.

Quote from: LMNOWell, zurtok,

Quote from: the statsSex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison ,Äì,Äì 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

* Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.

I stand corrected.  According to these numbers, rather than your 0% rate of "never to rape again", and my "slightly higher", the rate is apparently 94.7% and 96.6% for offenders released who do not re-offend.

I guess our estimates were a little off.

That's just within 3 years and just the ones that were arrested.

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy

That's just within 3 years and just the ones that were arrested.

Exactly. Statistics can only show a small part of the picture and this is a very complicated issue.

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomThis 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.

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.

8)

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.

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 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.

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of AlchemyIf 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?

8)

Quote from: gnimbley<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.

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?

:?

Quote from: East Coast Hustle

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of AlchemyIf 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?

8)

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

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!
\
(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/nigel.gif)

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.

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 :roll:

TRY READING THE ORIGINAL POST, YOU FUCKING RETARD.

fuck, you're dense!

8)

Quote from: East Coast HustleTRY READING THE ORIGINAL POST, YOU FUCKING RETARD.

fuck, you're dense!

8)

Dang!

(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/mittens.gif)

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?

Quote from: gnimbleyThe  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?

No one hates a pedo more than The Good Reverend, but this isn't pedophilia, it's ephebephilia.

The guy should have been put in the stocks and mocked, maybe a little bastinado...not had his entire life ruined.

maybe. unfortunately, he could have been convicted even if she had told him she was 18 or 20. I dunno about you, but if I'm wasted at a party and some 20 year old girl wants to jump on my nuts, I might not remember to ask for ID. seems a shitty reason to stigmatize someone.

8)

edit: strike that. ANY excuse to dish out the bastinado.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle

edit: strike that. ANY excuse to dish out the bastinado.

This is the correct answer.

Okay, so I was watching this interview while chasing around my 16 month old daughter getting her ready for daycare.  So my recollection of the story isn't the word-for-word gospel.  They really didn't go indepth into his particular crime.  All I know is it involved a 16 year old and he was significantly older than her at the time.  

The whole point of my post is that someone who knowingly committed a crime that involved later being registered a sex-offender shouldn't whine about being labeled a sex-offender after they have committed said crime.  You do the crime you do the time and part of that time involves being labled a sex-offender.  Seeing's how the victim isn't exactly offering the guy any support in his crusade to find a better house I'm guessing the sex wasn't all that consensual.  

I have a daughter now so I guess I look at these things differently than others.  I just have no sympathy for the guy at all.  He did something to a girl that he should not have done.  He just has to shut up and deal with it.  Or I could embed some sharpened steel in his skull.  Either one is fine with me really.

At what age can someone be capable of making the decision regarding sex? I know plenty of minors who have gone looking for older guys, some of whom succeeded in their quests.

The laws are too black and white with these things. The intent of the guilty party should really be taken more into consideration. If they were having consensual sex with a minor (but not a child) and this was a one time incident, maybe they shouldn't be labeled as a sex offender. If the crime was rape or sexual behaviour with a child/non-consensual victim... then attach the term.

But really... repeat offenders... castrate them chemically... Or make all offenders serve their prison term in a mental health facility rather than a prison... maybe they can get some help in 10 years or so.

Quote from: unlike_someone
But really... repeat offenders... castrate them chemically... Or make all offenders serve their prison term in a mental health facility rather than a prison... maybe they can get some help in 10 years or so.

Castration?

Why not just chop off their legs?  

We have prisons for a reason.

Quote from: gnimbleyThe  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?

Three words for you















Mary

















Jo















Buttofuco :shock:

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy

Quote from: gnimbleyThe  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?

Three words for you Mary Jo Buttofuco :shock:

I was actually referring to the fact he was not currently incarcerated,
nor under house arrest. Sorry I allowed an extraneous reference to
confuse the issue.

Quote from: gnimbley

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy

Quote from: gnimbleyThe  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?

Three words for you Mary Jo Buttofuco :shock:

I was actually referring to the fact he was not currently incarcerated,
nor under house arrest. Sorry I allowed an extraneous reference to
confuse the issue.

This thread has gone so far off topic without actually going off topic it's scary and I still can't find a link to what this guy actually did :shock:

That's because it never really got any press.  The Today Show was doing a piece on how states are strengthening laws and regulations concerning sex offenders and how they are registered.  So, Matt Lauer was interviewing this convicted Level 1 offender and his current wife as a follow-up.  So I doubt there is any news story on this guy in particular.  The point of the interview wasn't his specific crime it was how these laws and regulations concerning registered sex-offenders are affecting this guy's life.  He and his wife were complaining that he shouldn't be lumped in with the level 2 and level 3 who are more dangerous because it affects where they can live.

My whole point, once again, is that the guy has no right to complain because he committed a crime.  The fatherly vitriol in me wants to just slice the guys head off but even the rational side of me, at the very least, wants to scream at the guy to shut the fuck up.  Bottom line:  He committed a crime.  He was convicted.  HE MUST DEAL WITH IT.  I mean, the guy has a house.  He just wants to move into a bigger one but his registered status is "making it difficult."  Boo fucking hoo!  Even as a registered sex-offender he is able to own a home.  That's a life 100 times better than Stinky Joe who lives on the corner.    

Yeah, I know there can be some blurry lines when it comes to older teenagers.  However, I'm guessing that the sex with this 16 year old wasn't all that consensual.  I tend to think that if this incident had that much grey area he wouldn't have done any time.  There would have been some sort of plea deal.  The evidence against him was strong enough to send him to prison for a time.  Yeah, maybe he didn't beat her or maim her afterwards but he invaded her sexually.  That, by itself, is reprehensible.  A man should be able to excercise more restraint than that.  We can be rational and keep it in our pants.  It really isn't that hard.  Someone who gives in so easily into their temptations IS a danger to society.  They need to be dealt with in which ever way is best to eliminate that danger.  Death is the most certain but I know that isn't PC in our society.  And I can agree with that to a point.  But in the meantime, these convicts should not complain.  They have lost that right as soon as they violate another.

It seems that the whole question is:

"Which crimes should carry a lifelong stigma?"

Hell, even car insurance and credit records are expunged after 7 years, and they make money off your your mistakes!

The issue is not whether the guy was punished after comitting a crime; he went to jail.  But is it fair to ostracize the guy?  You obviously think so.  Others here disagree.

But while they have given reasons (albeit crude) why they think june-september relationships shouldn't be given the same weight as baby rapists, all you seem to be offering is "but he comitted a crime!" which is not being debated.

Oh, and it wouldn't matter if the girl "wanted to help" the guy find a place.  The law doesn't really care.

PS - in sweden, if I remember, the age of consent is 15.  So, in essence, the guy only comitted a crime because he's American.

Quote from: LMNO

The issue is not whether the guy was punished after comitting a crime; he went to jail.  But is it fair to ostracize the guy?  You obviously think so.  Others here disagree.

It's the type of crime he committed.  Sure, he didn't screw with a 7 year old girl but trust me I see lots of 15 and 16 year olds come into my store on a daily basis.  You can look at one and say, yeah she can make womanly decisions.  You look at others who are still emotionally immature.  Teenagers don't all mature at the same rate which is why it is illegal to have sex with someone 16 or younger.  Yeah, maybe they can make that decision but the chances are significant that they can't.  So it's better to be safe than sorry.  It's not perfect but biology isn't perfect.  It's a fact of life and people need to just deal with it even if it ends up biting them in the ass.  

QuoteBut while they have given reasons (albeit crude) why they think june-september relationships shouldn't be given the same weight as baby rapists, all you seem to be offering is "but he comitted a crime!" which is not being debated.

I understand that.  And I even agree with it to a point.  I just have no sympathy is I guess what I am saying.  Currently the law is if you screw a 16 year old, and she was an unwilling participant, you get labled a sex offender.  You don't want to get labled?  Try going to the local bar and stay away from the high school basketball games.  It's pretty simple and avoidable really.  

QuotePS - in sweden, if I remember, the age of consent is 15.  So, in essence, the guy only comitted a crime because he's American.

Yeah, that's right.  But he should have known that before he committed the crime.  If he didn't he was just ignorant and got what he deserved.

So, you're saying that if you read an item in the paper about a 15-year old girl dating a 30-year old guy in Sweden, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

You seem to be obsessed with the letter, if not the spirit, of American jurisprudence.

If Congress (through some act of weirdness, admittedly), lowered the age of consent to 15, retroactively, making this guy no longer a technical criminal, would that be ok with you?

And I can only suppose that you are in support of mandatory jail time for marijuana posession, as it is the current law of the land.

Quote from: LMNOSo, you're saying that if you read an item in the paper about a 15-year old girl dating a 30-year old guy in Sweden, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

If it was consensual and it's their law yes.  I don't think it's a wise course of action but as long as both parties are cool with it on the other end (no pun intended) then I would be fine with it.  (Like that really matters)  Look if I thought that the incident we were talking about was consensual and the guy got railroaded I'd be right there with you.  But at no point in the interview did he say he got wrongly convicted.  He admitted he had unwanted sex with a 16 year old.  Unwanted.  Not welcome.  Not asked for.  Unwilling participant.  

QuoteYou seem to be obsessed with the letter, if not the spirit, of American jurisprudence.

Not obsessed.  But as an American you must obey the law.  If you don't like it, work to change it.  However, if you break the law you deal with the consequences.  And besides this is affecting another person.  

QuoteIf Congress (through some act of weirdness, admittedly), lowered the age of consent to 15, retroactively, making this guy no longer a technical criminal, would that be ok with you?

But he still would be a criminal because it was unwanted sexual intercourse.  No does actually mean no.  If this was just a case of a girl having sex, her father finding out and getting pissed and landing the guy in jail, I'd be right there with you.  But that isn't what happend.  This guy took advantage of an emotionally unprepared 16 year old and forced her to do something she didn't want to do.  He didn't beat the crap out of her but he did emotionally scar her.  

QuoteAnd I can only suppose that you are in support of mandatory jail time for marijuana posession, as it is the current law of the land.

Umm, actually no.  Because someone smoking a joint in their bedroom doesn't harm an innocent 16 year old girl.

From your Original Post:

QuoteHe was convicted for having sex with a 16-year old. This guy's in his late 30's so he was definitely doing something he knew was against the law.

Then, on Page 3:

QuoteOkay, so I was watching this interview while chasing around my 16 month old daughter getting her ready for daycare. So my recollection of the story isn't the word-for-word gospel. They really didn't go indepth into his particular crime. All I know is it involved a 16 year old and he was significantly older than her at the time.

and later:

QuoteHowever, I'm guessing that the sex with this 16 year old wasn't all that consensual. I tend to think that if this incident had that much grey area he wouldn't have done any time.

But only now, do you claim:

QuoteHe admitted he had unwanted sex with a 16 year old. Unwanted. Not welcome. Not asked for. Unwilling participant.

Sorry, if you keep moving the playing field, I don't feel like participating.

I can't argue with that.  But the basics do not change.  Convicted of unwanted sex with a 16 year old.  I've always claimed he had unwanted sex with the girl I just wasn't very clear with my recounting of the interview in the beginning.  Fatherhood can make one tired and vague sometimes.  

Look, I can see where you are coming from.  And I understand why you think what you think.  There is some grey area when it comes to sexual relations involving older teenagers.  However, in my opinion, there is no grey area when she says no.  The bottom line is that a guy in his thirties doesn't have to have sex with someone who is legally immature to engage in sexual relations.  Just step away from the hottie.  There are plenty who ARE legal.  

If this guy had come on and said "I got railroaded, she said yes and now look at my life!"  I'm on your team.  That, I can say without a doubt, was not the case.  But that wasn't the set-up.  I apologize for my vaguery.  I shall consume much caffeine to clear that up.

At this point, you can't recall the interview clearly, and you can't find a link to the interview, so we have no idea what the "facts" are.

And, in legal jargon, statuatory rape (that is, sexual conduct with a minor, consentual or not) is "unwanted" by definition.  It doesn't matter in a court of law how she feels.

And since we have no transcript, we cannot know how she feels.

So, what are we left with?

You feel that forced sex with a minor should be punishable by the modern equivalent of a permanent Scarlet Letter.

I'm not too sure you're going to find too many people to argue against that.  But I will say I'm uncomfortable with the concept of an unredeemable offence.

That's fine.  It you had started this thread with the same vagueness that I did I'd probably feel the same way.  I won't argue that.  I was simply spouting or ranting.  

But I will, unapologetically, say that yes there are some offences for which I feel a "scarlet letter" isn't a bad thing.  Perhaps it's a medieval philosophy that I hold.  And I respect that it is one that you do not hold.  I have this cute little innocent angel who runs around carefree in my home.  I just think of something like that happening to her and then the jerk complaining about not being able to buy a bigger house and it just makes me want to jump through the TV and slap some sense into him with a nail-ridden 2x4.  

If there was a guy like that living in my neighborhood I would want to know about it.  I want to have whatever I can at my disposal so that I can protect my family.  That is what is most important to me.  These are the not-so-rose colored glasses that tint my vision.  I will put that out there, unashamedly and without remorse.

Quote from: LMNO
You feel that forced sex with a minor should be punishable by the modern equivalent of a permanent Scarlet Letter.

I'm not too sure you're going to find too many people to argue against that.  But I will say I'm uncomfortable with the concept of an unredeemable offence.

I did a bit more research last night and found out that, at least as far as level 1 offenders go, it's not considered an unredeemable offense. At the time of sentencing, the court determines the severity of the crime based on very complicated sentencing guidelines. These guidelines take into account the wishes of the victim and her family, letters of support and recommendation from friends and family of the defendant, their prior history, or lack of history, with the court system, etc. Probation conducts an investigation and makes their recommendation to the court. So do the prosecution and the defense attorneys. The judge looks at all of this and then makes the determination.

I was surprised to find out that under Megan's Law, there is a time limit on level 1 registration. The time spent as a registered offender is looked upon as part of the debt that has to be paid to society - much like parole. The court sentences them to so much time behind bars and then turns them loose to spend the rest of their sentence in the community. So basically, this guy will be free to live where he wants as soon as he's done the remainder of his time and completely paid his debt.

This link takes you to the Pierce County website, but Megan's Law is a federal law, so it's the same everywhere.

http://www.westchestergov.com/ptk/MegansLaw/meganslaw2.htm

"The length of time over which an offender is registered depends upon a specific designation assigned to the offender by the Court. Level 1 and 2 sex offenders registered prior to March 11, 2002 are registered for 10 years, and level 3 offenders registered before this date are registered for life. (This life registration may be shortened by the sentencing court after an offender has been registered for a minimum of 13 years.) Sex offenders whose level designation hearings were held on or after March 11, 2002, are registered for 10 years unless they have been designated a sexual predator, a sexually violent offender, or a predicate sex offender by the sentencing court, in which case they must register for life. "

And here's an explanation of the three levels of sex offenders:

"Level 1 - These offenders present the lowest possible risk to the community and their likelihood to re-offend is considered minimal. They normally have not exhibited predatory type characteristics and most have successfully participated or are participating in approved treatment programs. Many are first time offenders.

Level 2 - These offenders present a moderate risk to the community and they have a higher likelihood of re-offending than the Level 1 offenders. They are considered a higher risk to re-offend, because of the nature of their previous crime(s) and lifestyle (drug and alcohol abuse and other criminal activity). Some have refused to participate or failed to complete approved treatment programs.

Level 3 - These offenders pose a potential high risk to the community and are a threat to re-offend if provided the opportunity. Most have prior sex crime convictions as well as other criminal convictions. Their lifestyles and choices place them in this classification. Some have predatory characteristics and may seek out victims. They may have refused or failed to complete approved treatment programs. Fewer than 3% of all registered sex offenders in Pierce County are classified as Level 3 offenders ."

Well.

Sometimes a little bit of information can really clear things up.

I applaud and throw bejeweled accolades at your research, Bella.


::kisses::

OK, here is the other thing, I got this from a friend of mine who works in law enforcement.  These are the different levels for sex offenses.

1st Degree Penetration, lots of different circumstances.

2nd Degree Inappropriate touching, lots of different circumstances.

3rd Degree Penetration, lots of different circumstances.

4th Degree Inappropriate touching, lots of different circumstances.

You'll notice that 1 and 3 have penetraion, 2 and 4 do not.  Unlike other crimes, this is not a scale, where 1 is worse than 2 is worse than 3 is worse than 4 or the other way either.  If you really want all the gory details, click the following link.

http://www.msu.edu/~sdclub/resources/criminal%20code.doc

ps I haven't had a chance to go through the link Bella just posted. :wink:

edit:  Levels are different than the charges, hhmmmm.....this just gets more confusing.

So in ten years or less the guy will lose his scarlet letter and as long as he stays a good joe he'll be free to move around as he pleases.  That seems reasonable for a first offense.  He should feel fortunate that it will not be a lifelong stigma for him.  So again, I say to him, quit your whining and just deal with it.

Quote from: LMNOWell.

Sometimes a little bit of information can really clear things up.

I applaud and throw bejeweled accolades at your research, Bella.


::kisses::

Thank you.  :D

It was fun finding the answers, and to be honest, this was bugging me. I sat through a lot of sentencing hearings, and as a result,  found it hard to believe that what the guy on tv was saying was the whole truth. So I thought I'd dig around a little.

I think it's important to note that sex crimes are the absolute most difficult to prove. Consequently, they are the most difficult to prosecute. For a very short time, I was the victim advocate who dealt with Statutory Rape cases - until I begged them to take me off Stat Rape and give me something more fun.....like homicide. But in that short term I learned that most counties routinely refuse to prosecute Stat Rape unless the parents of the girl raise a huge stink or unless she's pregnant.

The primary reason for this is that you almost always have a "victim" who doesn't consider herself a victim and won't testify. But if you have a baby, you can prove who the father is or isn't - and that's all the proof you need. Most cases come to the attention of the DA's office when an underage girl goes in to sign up for welfare and gives them the name and personal information on the father of the child.

P.S. These cases are prosecuted mainly because the county gets a grant to prosecute them in order to keep the welfare rolls down.

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemyedit:  Levels are different than the charges, hhmmmm.....this just gets more confusing.

Yeah, your friend was trying to offer a simplified explanation of the penal code, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the sex offender registration levels.

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of Doom

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemyedit:  Levels are different than the charges, hhmmmm.....this just gets more confusing.

Yeah, your friend was trying to offer a simplified explanation of the penal code, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the sex offender registration levels.

Ah, OK, but the crime commited will have an effect on which level you end up on the registry, weird.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?But I will, unapologetically, say that yes there are some offences for which I feel a "scarlet letter" isn't a bad thing.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?So in ten years or less the guy will lose his scarlet letter and as long as he stays a good joe he'll be free to move around as he pleases.  That seems reasonable for a first offense.

[The Loudspeaker spoke up and said]

Paging CHEF.  Would CHEF please report to the thread...

[/The Loudspeaker spoke up and said]

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of Doom

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemyedit:  Levels are different than the charges, hhmmmm.....this just gets more confusing.

Yeah, your friend was trying to offer a simplified explanation of the penal code, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the sex offender registration levels.

Ah, OK, but the crime commited will have an effect on which level you end up on the registry, weird.

It's more complicated than people think - that's all.

Here's a link to the California Penal Code section that deals with rape.

http://asucd.ucdavis.edu/organizations/other/mar/penalcode.htm

The code for Stat Rape is 261.5. Which seems fairly simple, but there are 11 sub-sections - each of them dealing with a different set of circumstances. And still, it's often hard to determine exactly which of them, if any, should be charged.

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?But I will, unapologetically, say that yes there are some offences for which I feel a "scarlet letter" isn't a bad thing.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?So in ten years or less the guy will lose his scarlet letter and as long as he stays a good joe he'll be free to move around as he pleases.  That seems reasonable for a first offense.

I believe you are trying to exhibit a contradiction.  However you'll notice in the first quote I did not specify that a scarlet letter be permanent.  Thusly the second quote is not a contradiction of the first.  For someone who screws up, and is deemed by the state to not be a high level threat, a term of ten years with a scarlet letter is reasonable.  It's also reasonable to keep tabs on that guy for that ten year period.  I additionally approve of a permanent scarlet letter for the more dangerous offenders.

It really doesn't matter if the "scarlet letter" is permanent or not. The moment someone has a picture of a sex offender, everyone will know who they are. When they lose their title... people are still going to know. If they move (and people find out where to)... there are still people out there that will feel it necessary to tell the new community about this person.

Information on Level 1 offenders is never given out to the public. No photos are distributed, their names aren't released, etc. The only people who know about them are law enforcement and they aren't allowed to tell.

edit: Let me rephrase that - It's against the law to give information on Level 1 offenders to the public. I can't say for certain that it's never done.

THIS JUST IN:

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED BY PURITANS.

AMERICA IS STILL INHABITED AND LARGELY CONTROLLED BY PURITANS.

THAT IS ALL.

8)

Just for the record, since I'm the one who started this whole thing, I am not a Puritan.

I am writing about this from two angles:

Angle #1) A Father who would deal swiftly and harshly with ANYONE who did something to my daughter that was unwanted.

Angle #2) Someone who thinks other people shouldn't whine and complain about situations that they got themselves into.  Reap what you sow and shut the hell up!

This has nothing to do with my views on sex.  If a 21 year old and a 16 year old get it on and they were both willing participants.  Great, let's give them a pat on the back and a morning after pill.  However, if a 33 year old emotionally and/or physically subdues a 16 year old and makes her engage in sexual relations when it is unwanted then he must deal with what results from those actions.  To protest after the fact that he is a victim is laughable and pathetic and warrants a couple of slaps upside the head with a really really heavy thing.

Quote from: East Coast HustleTHIS JUST IN:

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED BY PURITANS.

AMERICA IS STILL INHABITED AND LARGELY CONTROLLED BY PURITANS.

THAT IS ALL.

8)

1.  Incorrect.

2.  Correct.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

This has nothing to do with my views on sex.  If a 21 year old and a 16 year old get it on and they were both willing participants.  Great, let's give them a pat on the back and a morning after pill.  However, if a 33 year old emotionally and/or physically subdues a 16 year old and makes her engage in sexual relations when it is unwanted then he must deal with what results from those actions.  To protest after the fact that he is a victim is laughable and pathetic and warrants a couple of slaps upside the head with a really really heavy thing.

1.  Now he's 33?

2.  I don't see why 12 years makes a difference.  It must otherwise you wouldn't have used it as part of your examples.

You're missing the point.  It's not about the age of the male.  It's about the receptiveness of the girl.  I used the ages I did because it's more likely that a 16 year old is going to have consensual sex with someone closer to her age.  

But don't get hung up on the age.  The issue is whether or not the girl wanted sex.  If yes, honky dory have a nice life.  If no, deal with the male in the appropriate manner.  And just so I cover my bases, if the genders were reversed I would see things the same way.

So, just so I clearly understand:

You think non-consentual sex is bad.


Ok.  I think I got it.

Bingo!  And if he gets caught.  Deal with it and keep quiet.

Edit:  And now I am going to go change my guinea pigs bedding.  Of course it will be a non consentual act but the tough part about being a guinea pig is that they aren't vicous enough to properly protest.  Good Day.

...and if he feels that the rules are unjust, and unfairly applied to his particular case?

Obviously if charged he goes to trial.  He defeneds himself to the best of his abilities.  If he still gets convicted he appeals to the fullest extent of the law.  

If however, as in the case cited at the beginning, he admits guilt and wrong doing he deals with the consequences of said wrong-deed.

Further.  You can't commit a crime.  Admit guilt.  And then complain about the punishment.  Well, I suppose you can but the obvious solution is to not commit the crime in the first place.

[derail]

Once, in Illinois, my friend Andy and I were driving to a Mexican restaurant, when we pulled up next to a red miata with the top down.  Sitting in it was a 40-something dude with a bad comb-over, and a 18-ish little blond that was obviously NOT his daughter.

What could we do?  We pointed at him through the open window, and laughed our asses off, laughing harder as he tried to sink into his seat.

[/derail]

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?Further.  In my opinion, you can't do something that gets you arrested and charged with committing a crime, admit guilt to cop a plea so as to avoid a long, complicated, expensive trial that would instantly castigate you as a villan before looking at all mitigating evidence, and then complain about the punishment that is handed out equally to almost legal statuatory cases and baby rapists alike.

Clarified that for you.

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?Further.  In my opinion, you can't do something that gets you arrested and charged with committing a crime, admit guilt to cop a plea so as to avoid a long, complicated, expensive trial that would instantly castigate you as a villan before looking at all mitigating evidence, and then complain about the punishment that is handed out equally to almost legal statuatory cases and baby rapists alike.

Clarified that for you.

Statuatory rape != pedophelia, legally or morally.

What is he talking about?

To be honest, it seems like he started out the thread ranting about abusive and coercive men, most likely brought on by looking after his daughter while watching the news, and then I took his rant as his actual veiws, which seem a bit more reasonable as time goes on.

I have a feeling I'm crossing the line from debate to poking with a sharp stick.

is that bad?

Quote from: LMNOTo be honest, it seems like he started out the thread ranting about abusive and coercive men, most likely brought on by looking after his daughter while watching the news, and then I took his rant as his actual veiws, which seem a bit more reasonable as time goes on.

I have a feeling I'm crossing the line from debate to poking with a sharp stick.

is that bad?

Naw.  Go for broke. :lol:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger[derail]

Once, in Illinois, my friend Andy and I were driving to a Mexican restaurant, when we pulled up next to a red miata with the top down.  Sitting in it was a 40-something dude with a bad comb-over, and a 18-ish little blond that was obviously NOT his daughter.

What could we do?  We pointed at him through the open window, and laughed our asses off, laughing harder as he tried to sink into his seat.

[/derail]

I'm unclear as to why you were making fun of this guy.

I hope to Jeebus that when I'm 40 and balding I can still score with 18 year old hotties.

8)

Well, then.  TGRR had given me my marching orders.

Now, the question: should I obey?

Quote from: LMNOWell, then.  TGRR had given me my marching orders.

Now, the question: should I obey?

OBEY OR GET OFF MY INTERNETS.

Whoops...sorry...had a Hugh moment, there. :lol:

[/gratuitous shot]

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/STFUGore.jpg)

Quote from: LMNO(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/STFUGore.jpg)

STOLEN!11

:lol:

Quote from: East Coast Hustle

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger[derail]

Once, in Illinois, my friend Andy and I were driving to a Mexican restaurant, when we pulled up next to a red miata with the top down.  Sitting in it was a 40-something dude with a bad comb-over, and a 18-ish little blond that was obviously NOT his daughter.

What could we do?  We pointed at him through the open window, and laughed our asses off, laughing harder as he tried to sink into his seat.

[/derail]

I'm unclear as to why you were making fun of this guy.

I hope to Jeebus that when I'm 40 and balding I can still score with 18 year old hotties.

8)

Sorry, dude...that is one of the most ridiculous sights that can be found in modern America.

I hate to say it guys, but I think we just hijacked this thread...

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: East Coast Hustle

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger[derail]

Once, in Illinois, my friend Andy and I were driving to a Mexican restaurant, when we pulled up next to a red miata with the top down.  Sitting in it was a 40-something dude with a bad comb-over, and a 18-ish little blond that was obviously NOT his daughter.

What could we do?  We pointed at him through the open window, and laughed our asses off, laughing harder as he tried to sink into his seat.

[/derail]

I'm unclear as to why you were making fun of this guy.

I hope to Jeebus that when I'm 40 and balding I can still score with 18 year old hotties.

8)

Sorry, dude...that is one of the most ridiculous sights that can be found in modern America.

granted, the combover is never a good idea, and if you drive a miata, WAYSA?

but...

at the end of the day, that guy is still going home with an 18 year old hottie.

8)

Quote from: LMNOI hate to say it guys, but I think we just hijacked this thread...

TEH WSotTC STRIKES AGAIN!

[/strongbad voice]

Quote from: LMNOTo be honest, it seems like he started out the thread ranting about abusive and coercive men, most likely brought on by looking after his daughter while watching the news, and then I took his rant as his actual veiws, which seem a bit more reasonable as time goes on.

I have a feeling I'm crossing the line from debate to poking with a sharp stick.

is that bad?

Clean Guinea Pig.  Always a good thing.  

No.  My rant is not about abusive and coercive men.  It started out being about people who are convicted of a crime.  Assuming and admitting guilt in said crime.  And then whining about the punishment.  Pretty simple.  Yes it involved sexual abuse.  I have strong feelings about anyone who would sexually abuse a young girl AGAINST HER WILL.  Yes, they are old school.  Yes those feelings are pretty much "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"  But that wasn't the original point.

Quote from: East Coast Hustleat the end of the day, that guy is still going home with an 18 year old hottie.

8)

And?

Perhaps I'm just too "well adjusted" in this department.

TGGR,
Likes his women in their 30s, rather than 18 year old kids.

I'm not talking about taking her home for political conversation and a rousing game of backgammon.

I prefer to have semi-serious relationships with women my own age, but for sleazy, cheap, gratuitous one night stands, nothing beats a horny college freshman.

8)

Well, I have to say that with the current legal system being what it is, I can't allow myself the black and white certainty to trust that a person admitting guilt is actually guilty of the precise crime that they admitted to.

Nor that they had all the facts in what their punishment entailed.

Nor that they didn't admit to guilt under threats or coersion.

Hell, I know Law & Order isn't very realistic, but even they represent the system as flawed and easily manipulated.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGGR,
Likes his women in their 30s, rather than 18 year old kids.

More experience does tend to equal higher quality.  Although there is a breaking point.

Quote from: East Coast HustleI'm not talking about taking her home for political conversation and a rousing game of backgammon.

I prefer to have semi-serious relationships with women my own age, but for sleazy, cheap, gratuitous one night stands, nothing beats a horny college freshman.

8)

That's what I'm talking about.  I just don't find kids that age sexy.

TGRR,
Is either well-adjusted or just plain OLD. :lol:

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGGR,
Likes his women in their 30s, rather than 18 year old kids.

More experience does tend to equal higher quality.  Although there is a breaking point.

But the breaking point moves as you age. 8)

Quote from: LMNOWell, I have to say that with the current legal system being what it is, I can't allow myself the black and white certainty to trust that a person admitting guilt is actually guilty of the precise crime that they admitted to.

Nor that they had all the facts in what their punishment entailed.

Nor that they didn't admit to guilt under threats or coersion.

Hell, I know Law & Order isn't very realistic, but even they represent the system as flawed and easily manipulated.

These are all true, to a point.  I just can't see someone admitting guilt to a cop, a judge, and a national TV broadcast and being innocent.

There's a difference to acknowledging that an action is currently considered illegal by community standards, and admitting guilt.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGGR,
Likes his women in their 30s, rather than 18 year old kids.

More experience does tend to equal higher quality.  Although there is a breaking point.

But the breaking point moves as you age. 8)

Until she hits 60 and then a "break" is probably a certainty.  Unless you excercise some restraint of course.   8)

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: LMNOWell, I have to say that with the current legal system being what it is, I can't allow myself the black and white certainty to trust that a person admitting guilt is actually guilty of the precise crime that they admitted to.

Nor that they had all the facts in what their punishment entailed.

Nor that they didn't admit to guilt under threats or coersion.

Hell, I know Law & Order isn't very realistic, but even they represent the system as flawed and easily manipulated.

These are all true, to a point.  I just can't see someone admitting guilt to a cop, a judge, and a national TV broadcast and being innocent.

Then I hope you have the sense to call a lawyer, if you ever get in trouble.

Remember Richard Jewell?  THe first guy they accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing?

They asked him HOW he would do it, IF it were him doing it.

He told them, and then they said he confessed.

Turns out later on that it was a Xtian screwball by the name of Eric Rudolf.

Quote from: LMNOThere's a difference to acknowledging that an action is currently considered illegal by community standards, and admitting guilt.

Either way he should have kept his pants zipped.

Are you changing the point again?

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerThen I hope you have the sense to call a lawyer, if you ever get in trouble.

Remember Richard Jewell?  THe first guy they accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing?

They asked him HOW he would do it, IF it were him doing it.

He told them, and then they said he confessed.

Turns out later on that it was a Xtian screwball by the name of Eric Rudolf.

Saying how he would doing it is different than saying how he did do it.

Quote from: LMNOAre you changing the point again?

No, but it is true that some restraint would have prevented the whole thing.  Thus why he shouldn't complain.  He had the ability to avoid the "inconvenience" he found himself in.  He, unwisely, chose not to.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGGR,
Likes his women in their 30s, rather than 18 year old kids.

More experience does tend to equal higher quality.  Although there is a breaking point.

But the breaking point moves as you age. 8)

Until she hits 60 and then a "break" is probably a certainty.  Unless you excercise some restraint of course.   8)

Meh.  The safest course is to follow the "half your age + 7" rule.


If you are 20, then she should be no younger than 20/2 = 10 + 7 = 17 years old.

If you are 36, 36/2 = 18 + 7 = 25 years old.

Etc.

Emily Post PWNS JOO!

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?
Saying how he would doing it is different than saying how he did do it.

Not to the cops, the media, and the fact that he'll never get a security job again.  ever.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerThen I hope you have the sense to call a lawyer, if you ever get in trouble.

Remember Richard Jewell?  THe first guy they accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing?

They asked him HOW he would do it, IF it were him doing it.

He told them, and then they said he confessed.

Turns out later on that it was a Xtian screwball by the name of Eric Rudolf.

Saying how he would doing it is different than saying how he did do it.

The cops are honest, in your world?  :lol:

What color is the sky?

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?
Saying how he would doing it is different than saying how he did do it.

Not to the cops, the media, and the fact that he'll never get a security job again.  ever.

In Jewell's case that is correct.  He did get a raw deal.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerThen I hope you have the sense to call a lawyer, if you ever get in trouble.

Remember Richard Jewell?  THe first guy they accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing?

They asked him HOW he would do it, IF it were him doing it.

He told them, and then they said he confessed.

Turns out later on that it was a Xtian screwball by the name of Eric Rudolf.

Saying how he would doing it is different than saying how he did do it.

The cops are honest, in your world?  :lol:

What color is the sky?

And don't forget, the media is impartial and non-judgemental.

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?
Saying how he would doing it is different than saying how he did do it.

Not to the cops, the media, and the fact that he'll never get a security job again.  ever.

Actually, he was the benefactor of the backlash on that one.

He's a Sherrif's deputy now, and has been decorated for heroism since (involving a burning car, IIRC)

Turns out he's the real deal.

if he had forced himself on her, he would have been accused of sexual battery, which would have resulted in serious jail time and no interview on national TV. everything about the circumstances of the case heavily implies consent by both parties. if we operate under the assumption that consent was given by both parties, then while what he did might have been distatsteful, to criminalize it is absolutely ridiculous.

when I was 16, I might not have been totally emotionally mature, but I was certainly able to understand and deal with the consequences of my decisions in that regard, and part of becoming emotionally mature is to go through various situations ad learn from the experiences. When I was 16, I hooked up with a 29 year old nurse who was on her vacation (I told her I was 22). Legally, what she did was statutory rape, a felony that would have stigmatized her for life, and yet I was not victimized in any way. If anything, it gave me a leg up on how to be a pimp. My guess (and this is just me taking a flyer, but I'm not so old that I've forgotten how this sort of thing works) is that her parents found out about what happened (probably snooped her IM conversations) and wigged out and she decided that given the choice between admitting to her parents that she was horny and shagging an older guy or saying "I didn't want to! I'm still your good little angel, but he forced me!", she took the easy way out.

8)

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?
Saying how he would doing it is different than saying how he did do it.

Not to the cops, the media, and the fact that he'll never get a security job again.  ever.

In Jewell's case that is correct.  He did get a raw deal.

Yeah, but he shouldn't complain about what happened to him.  He should never have been the conspicuous fat guy in Atlanta when the bomb went off.

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerThe cops are honest, in your world?  :lol:

What color is the sky?

Um, it's black.

And Jewell never said "Hey, I did it! "
The subject of this post did say "Hey, I did it!"

Quote from: LMNOYeah, but he shouldn't complain about what happened to him.  He should never have been the conspicuous fat guy in Atlanta when the bomb went off.

No, he should complain because he maintained his innocence and was in fact innocent.  Subject of the post maintains his guilt and was in fact guilty.

I suspect he said, "hey, i was convicted of it."

There's a difference.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerThe cops are honest, in your world?  :lol:

What color is the sky?

Um, it's black.

And Jewell never said "Hey, I did it! "
The subject of this post did say "Hey, I did it!"

Jewell:  According to the FBI and the Atlanta police, he did.

This guy:  According to whom?

Um, no actually he said "I made a mistake. I was guilty. But, I'm never going to do it again."

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Jewell:  According to the FBI and the Atlanta police, he did.

This guy:  According to whom?

According to himself.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?Um, no actually he said "I made a mistake. I was guilty. But, I'm never going to do it again."

POLICE:  If you did it, would you do it again?

Dumbass:  No.

POLICE:  Subject says he regrets it, and wouldn't do it again.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?Um, no actually he said "I made a mistake. I was guilty. But, I'm never going to do it again."

Suddenly, the guy who wasn't really paying attention to the TV because he was tending to his daughter "remembers" a direct quote (that he can't verify) from the newscast.

Wonders never cease.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?Um, no actually he said "I made a mistake. I was guilty. But, I'm never going to do it again."

POLICE:  If you did it, would you do it again?

Dumbass:  No.

POLICE:  Subject says he regrets it, and wouldn't do it again.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Are you guilty?

Dumbass: Not really.  There was consent.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Doesn't matter.  You can either fight this in court, and lose, and get 15-20 years in prison, or you can plead guilty and get 5 years, plus probation.

Dumbass:  Alright, you win.  Where do I sign?

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?Um, no actually he said "I made a mistake. I was guilty. But, I'm never going to do it again."

Suddenly, the guy who wasn't really paying attention to the TV because he was tending to his daughter "remembers" a direct quote (that he can't verify) from the newscast.

Wonders never cease.

Aw, to hell with it.

I think we should give people the bastinado the moment they are accused.  Saves time on luxuries like "trials" and "juries".

We have no need of juries.  We have the media.

Worked for OJ...

I said I don't remember every freaking word.  I do remember that.  If the guy had been innocent the interview would have been about how he was framed.  The interview was about how he was guilty (to which he did admit.  Sorry I should not have used quotation marks) and how the punishment was affecting his inability to live where he wants to.

Quote from: LMNOWorked for OJ...

Troof.

Judge Ito should have been tossed in the ocean.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?I said I don't remember every freaking word.  I do remember that.  If the guy had been innocent the interview would have been about how he was framed.  The interview was about how he was guilty (to which he did admit.  Sorry I should not have used quotation marks) and how the punishment was affecting his inability to live where he wants to.

Not the Punishment.  the Punishment was Jail.  This is the post-Punishment castigation.

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?I said I don't remember every freaking word.  I do remember that.  If the guy had been innocent the interview would have been about how he was framed.  The interview was about how he was guilty (to which he did admit.  Sorry I should not have used quotation marks) and how the punishment was affecting his inability to live where he wants to.

Not the Punishment.  the Punishment was Jail.  This is the post-Punishment castigation.

Why not?  Whip him until the day he dies, so that the rest of us can feel all self-righteous.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: LMNOWorked for OJ...

Troof.

Judge Ito should have been tossed in the ocean.

I can't believe how badly Marcia Clarck fucked that one up...

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: LMNOWorked for OJ...

Troof.

Judge Ito should have been tossed in the ocean.

I can't believe how badly Marcia Clarck fucked that one up...

DO NOT TAUNT HAPPY FUN CHEWBACCA DEFENSE.

Quote from: LMNO

Not the Punishment.  the Punishment was Jail.  This is the post-Punishment castigation.[/quote]

No, part of his punishment is being registered and being restricted as to where he can live.  If after this phase his punishment has ceased he is being castigated then that is wrong.  Until then, he must serve out the punishment as dealt out by the state.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: LMNO

Not the Punishment.  the Punishment was Jail.  This is the post-Punishment castigation.

No, part of his punishment is being registered and being restricted as to where he can live.  If after this phase his punishment has ceased he is being castigated then that is wrong.  Until then, he must serve out the punishment as dealt out by the state.

So, the purpose of SO registration is so that the neighbors can castigate him?

Damn, that makes me PROUD to be an American!  BOO-YA!  Break out the pillory!

(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/iwojima.gif)

I will try to find the transcript of this interview and post it.  I was searching the Today Show website but it makes as much sense as Al Roker's wardrobe.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
So, the purpose of SO registration is so that the neighbors can castigate him?

Damn, that makes me PROUD to be an American!  BOO-YA!  Break out the pillory!

No, it's to keep him away from prime sources of underage tail and thusly protect him from violent fathers like me.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
So, the purpose of SO registration is so that the neighbors can castigate him?

Damn, that makes me PROUD to be an American!  BOO-YA!  Break out the pillory!

No, it's to keep him away from prime sources of underage tail and thusly protect him from violent fathers like me.

But you said it was "punishment".

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
No, it's to keep him away from prime sources of underage tail and thusly protect him from violent fathers like me.

But you said it was "punishment".[/quote]

Um, I think I wasn't being 100% serious with that statement which I thought was rather clear.

Yes, it's segregation.  Segregate the sex-offenders from the kids they may offend.  Life's rough when you are a convicted sex-offender.  Perhaps we should give them a cookie, pat them on the back and say we understand their pain and just let them run around as they like.

The SO registry was created because law enforcement discovered/announced/arbitrarily decided that jail is ineffective for treatement and rehabilitation of sex offenders.

Rather than shape new law that deals with the root causes, they decided to tack on more archaic and repressive laws to the existing statuates.

BTW, the SO registry is still ineffective treatment and rehabilitatin for sex offenders.

That may be true but it gives the kids a fighting chance.  You want to roll back the registry?  Fine.  But I will push for laws enabling me to stroll the streets with a warhammer to carry out my own brand of justice.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
No, it's to keep him away from prime sources of underage tail and thusly protect him from violent fathers like me.

But you said it was "punishment".

Um, I think I wasn't being 100% serious with that statement which I thought was rather clear.

Yes, it's segregation.  Segregate the sex-offenders from the kids they may offend.  Life's rough when you are a convicted sex-offender.  Perhaps we should give them a cookie, pat them on the back and say we understand their pain and just let them run around as they like.

No, I think we should brand all criminals, or put out their eyes, etc.

That way, we can tell who should be marginalized for life.  Criminals should be given no chance to "rejoin" society.  There should be no forgiveness, no mercy, or any other such silly liberalisms.

Criminals should basically be enslaved, and/or fed to wild animals for our amusement.

By the way, have you ever broken the law, citizen?

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?That may be true but it gives the kids a fighting chance.  You want to roll back the registry?  Fine.  But I will push for laws enabling me to stroll the streets with a warhammer to carry out my own brand of justice.

I think the registry should apply to ALL criminals, so that their deeds can hang around their neck like an albatross, for the rest of their lives.

Maybe we can even brand their children on the forehead as "bad seeds".

edit: directed at what's his name, not Rog.

still missing the point. let's try this again:

16 YEAR OLDS (OF EITHER GENDER) ARE CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO FUCK SOMEONE. THIS MAN WAS NOT A SEXUAL PREDATOR. HE WAS NOT MOLESTING LITTLE GIRLS. HE LACKS GAME AND HAD TO GO FOR A GIRL AT THE YOUNGEST EDGE OF THE SCALE OF ACCEPTABILITY. THIS JUST MAKES HIM AN OPIE, NOT A CRIMINAL.

it also makes me wonder what his wife looks like.

8)

Quote from: East Coast Hustlestill missing the point. let's try this again:

16 YEAR OLDS (OF EITHER GENDER) ARE CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO FUCK SOMEONE. THIS MAN WAS NOT A SEXUAL PREDATOR. HE WAS NOT MOLESTING LITTLE GIRLS. HE LACKS GAME AND HAD TO GO FOR A GIRL AT THE YOUNGEST EDGE OF THE SCALE OF ACCEPTABILITY. THIS JUST MAKES HIM AN OPIE, NOT A CRIMINAL.

it also makes me wonder what his wife looks like.

8)

But that would keep me from enjoying my vicious self-righteousness.

why? it hasn't stopped me on bit.

8)

Quote from: East Coast Hustlewhy? it hasn't stopped me on bit.

8)

Well, yeah, but I want to know who the criminals around me are, so I can pick on them with no fear of any social stigma being attached to myself.

I WANT TO HATE, DAMMIT, AND THESE ARE MY CHOSEN VICTIMS!11@

(S)EX Offender
Blondie


I saw you standing on the corner, you looked so big and fine.
I really wanted to go out with you, so when you smiled,
I laid my heart on the line
You read me my rights and then you said "Let's go" and nothing more
I thought of my nights, and how they were
They were filled with

I know you wouldn't go
You'd watch my heart burst then you'd step in
I had to know so I asked
You just had to laugh

We sat in the night with my hands cuffed at my side
I look at your life and your style
I wanted nothing more
I know you wouldn't go
You'd watch my heart burst then you'd step in
I had to know so I asked
You just had to laugh

Walking the line, you were a marksman
Told me that law, like wine, is ageless
Public defender
You had to admit
You wanted the love of a sex offender

I know you wouldn't go
You'd watch my heart burst then you'd step in
I had to know so I asked
You just had to laugh

My vision in blue, I call you from inside my cell
And in the trial, you were there
With your badge and rubber boots

I think all the time how I'm going to perpetrate love with you
And when I get out, there's no doubt I'll be sex offensive to you

Quote from: Zurtok KhanBiggest problem is that there is a 0% rehabilitation rate with Pedophiles

Bullshit.  Actually, the rate can be 60% or more if chemical castration is combined with therapy.

Quote from: Cain

Quote from: Zurtok KhanBiggest problem is that there is a 0% rehabilitation rate with Pedophiles

Bullshit.  Actually, the rate can be 60% or more if chemical castration is combined with therapy.

Just cut their heads off.  They'll never do it again.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Cain

Quote from: Zurtok KhanBiggest problem is that there is a 0% rehabilitation rate with Pedophiles

Bullshit.  Actually, the rate can be 60% or more if chemical castration is combined with therapy.

Just cut their heads off.  They'll never do it again.

This is true, but then they can't be used as slave labour in prisons.  Which is, after all, the humane thing nowadays, apparently.

And also, how would the government then justify its increasing internet surveillance?

Looks like Rog got his wish (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/police_say_vigilante_may_have_slain_2_wash_sex_offenders/).

QuoteOn Friday night, a man claiming to be an FBI agent dropped in on three Level 3 sex offenders living together, supposedly to warn them of an Internet hit list targeting sex offenders.

The man was not an FBI agent, but he may have been enforcing a hit list of his own.

Two of the roommates were found dead of gunshot wounds early Saturday, and Bellingham police are investigating a crime authorities say may be one of the nation's most serious cases of vigilantism aimed at sex offenders.

Bellingham is full of nothing but hippies and Canadian shoppers. That guy was probably from Lynden, which is just outside B'ham and has the distinction of proudly promoting itself as a town for christian fundies.

either way, I hope the police don't bother to investigate too closely.

8)

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 23, 2005, 07:50:55 PM
burglury

:cry:

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I'd like to know if its been clarified whether he actually assaulted this girl, or whether he just happened to have the bad luck to live in, say Arizona or Pennsylvania, rather than Maryland or New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Consent_in_North_America#State_Laws)


Edit:
:musak: ...Look down. Look down... :musak:


EDIT:
I agree, however, that "get out the violins" is good advice for a case like this. We should also get out a book about goats and anything else which may be helpful in ignoring a trumped-up issue.

Ye have locked yerselves up in cages of fear--and, behold, do ye now complain that ye lack FREEDOM!

Ye have cast out yer brothers for devils and now complain ye, lamenting that ye've been left to fight alone.

All Chaos was once yer kingdom; verily, held ye dominion over the entire Pentaverse, but today ye was sore afraid in dark corners, nooks, and sink holes.

O how the darknesses do crowd up, one against the other, in yer hearts!

Verily, verily I say unto you, not all the Sinister Ministers of the Bavarian Illuminati, working together in multitudes, could so entwine the land with tribulation as have yer baseless warnings.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 21, 2014, 07:29:16 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 23, 2005, 07:50:55 PM
burglury

:cry:

It was like, a different time, man.

Quote from: AFK on August 24, 2005, 03:17:31 PM
Umm, actually no.  Because someone smoking a joint in their bedroom doesn't harm an innocent 16 year old girl.

Well. That's goddamn gold right there. :lulz:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2005, 08:06:05 PM

Quote from: East Coast HustleI'm not talking about taking her home for political conversation and a rousing game of backgammon.

I prefer to have semi-serious relationships with women my own age, but for sleazy, cheap, gratuitous one night stands, nothing beats a horny college freshman.

8)

That's what I'm talking about.  I just don't find kids that age sexy.

TGRR,
Is either well-adjusted or just plain OLD. :lol:

And now I feel this way as well.

THANKS FOR GIVING ME YOUR RAGING CASE OF OLD, TGRR!

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 15, 2014, 09:16:03 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2005, 08:06:05 PM

Quote from: East Coast HustleI'm not talking about taking her home for political conversation and a rousing game of backgammon.

I prefer to have semi-serious relationships with women my own age, but for sleazy, cheap, gratuitous one night stands, nothing beats a horny college freshman.

8)

That's what I'm talking about.  I just don't find kids that age sexy.

TGRR,
Is either well-adjusted or just plain OLD. :lol:

And now I feel this way as well.

THANKS FOR GIVING ME YOUR RAGING CASE OF OLD, TGRR!

I didn't do it.  You have successfully managed to avoid my presence for 12 years. 

I'm gonna blame this entire thing on Nigel.

WHAT DID I DO THIS TIME?

You gave ECH's dick a concience.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 02:38:58 PM
You gave ECH's dick a concience.

:cry:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 02:38:58 PM
You gave ECH's dick a concience.

I guess that's one approach to harm reduction.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 15, 2014, 02:44:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 02:38:58 PM
You gave ECH's dick a concience.

:cry:

Yeah, yeah.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 03:17:27 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 15, 2014, 02:44:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 02:38:58 PM
You gave ECH's dick a concience.

:cry:

Yeah, yeah.

Everything has gone BAD and WRONG in the world.  EVERYTHING.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 15, 2014, 03:18:40 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 03:17:27 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 15, 2014, 02:44:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 02:38:58 PM
You gave ECH's dick a concience.

:cry:

Yeah, yeah.

Everything has gone BAD and WRONG in the world.  EVERYTHING.

At least SOMETHING is working out.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 02:38:58 PM
You gave ECH's dick a concience.

Let's not get TOO carried away. It's really just a shift in aesthetic preferences. If you look like I'm going to have to show you how to do this correctly I'm just not interested.

tl;dr:

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8567/16012005306_35c9cddb41_o.jpg)
http://youtu.be/g1sO7jUp4jI (http://youtu.be/g1sO7jUp4jI)

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 15, 2014, 09:03:46 AM

Quote from: AFK on August 24, 2005, 03:17:31 PM
Umm, actually no.  Because someone smoking a joint in their bedroom doesn't harm an innocent 16 year old girl.

Well. That's goddamn gold right there. :lulz:

Bump in case it got lost at the bottom of the last page.