Life in Prison for being Homeless

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Shrapnel12]Nobody (except whacko liberals it seems) can tolerate a sex offender. They are sicko's who can't be cured and don't belong in society anymore, yet we just let them lose.[/q]

So, let's get this straight. A guy who is a "sex offender" because he was 20, while his girlfriend was 17, "can't be cured and [doesn't] belong in society anymore"? Really?

And yes, those type of folks are labeled sex offenders if the age of consent law is that sloppy.

I was talking about crimes against children. I don't see a 17 year old as a child, though legally they still are. You bring up a good point though and help prove my point that existing laws are unjust and unfair. How about the case where a man who was 17 when the alleged crime was commited, yet he is being charged with rape of a minor who was around or not much younger then him. The sex was consentual and there is no dispute about that. One thing I'd like to know is that how come he's being charged and not her (though neither should be charged with a crime)? Technically they were both guilty.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Why, are you interested ?






Who'd have thought that only people with children are allowed to debate bad laws, jurisprudence and justice.

Actually this has merit. Only people with children can sit on a jury where the crime is child molestation. Good job Molly, great idea!

[Wezil]

To be fair, I think only child molesters should be allowed to sit on such juries.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If the distances were right, and the institutions you had to be a distance from were limited to a reasonable number, it wouldnt amount to "exile".

So if this law does mean exile, and this isnt an unusual case, where are all the others who are in this position?

The article mentions 15 folks, surely Georgia has far more registered sex offenders than that?

It isn't that there is anything unusual about the topology in Augusta. Some offenders already own a home, or live with relatives, or share an apartment with a friend, etc. There are undoubtedly many places outside the restrictions if those options are available. If not, the Salvation Army shelter is too close to protected locations. That leaves only a couple of sleazy motels.

In general, though, I agree that all sex offenders should not be lumped together. Why restrict non-pedophiles from child care and playgrounds?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lancer
Actually this has merit. Only people with children can sit on a jury where the crime is child molestation. Good job Molly, great idea!

What about that whole impartial jury thing? Justice being blind? No?

[Lancer]

No, it just ends up blind, stupid and heartless and more children get molested by freaks turned loose.

[Lorizael]

Whereas a better system would clearly be one where parent juries are too caught up in their emotions to see the evidence clearly and convict anyone suspected of doing the naughty with a child.

[Lancer]

I have more confidence in people. Parents would be capable of rendering a verdict that spares children whereas the failures of the existing system are there for all to see complete with ruined childrens lives.

Guys, I know I'm not mainsteam on crime. Mainstream people is why it's not safe to walk the streets at night. Mainstream people sit in their gated community and cry over the rights of monsters.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lancer
Mainstream people sit in their gated community and cry over the rights of monsters.

Oh. You didn't tell me we were talking about monsters. Honestly, I'm harsher than you are on these guys. I don't think the justice system should even apply to monsters. I think police officers should shoot monsters on sight. I think, in fact, that a portion of our government should be dedicated to hunting down and killing monsters because they represent a supernatural threat to national security. You know, something like the Men in Black, except more violent.

United States citizens, on the other hand, I would treat a bit differently.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
I was talking about crimes against children. I don't see a 17 year old as a child, though legally they still are. You bring up a good point though and help prove my point that existing laws are unjust and unfair. How about the case where a man who was 17 when the alleged crime was commited, yet he is being charged with rape of a minor who was around or not much younger then him. The sex was consentual and there is no dispute about that. One thing I'd like to know is that how come he's being charged and not her (though neither should be charged with a crime)? Technically they were both guilty.

Well, that's my point. Sex offenders aren't necessarily those who commit pedophilia (ie, molesting a kid who hasn't reach puberty). Plenty of folks are listed as "sex offenders" for, as you said, having sex with a minor, even though s/he wasn't much older or flashing folks (of co-ed age) on a college campus as a prank.

The thing is that I agree with you that the existing laws are unfair and a "one size fits all" which is ridiculous. I think the registration stuff should really only be for those who have engaged in pedophila or certain kinds of pederasty (against pubescent, but underage kids), but even then, there should be somewhere in the town they can live... it doesn't matter where really. And something has to be done for those who are homeless... you can't really arrest them for not having a job (would you hire a pedophile if you could help it?).

Also there are plenty who can and have turned their lives around.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
you can't really arrest them for not having a job (would you hire a pedophile if you could help it?).

Aren't all ex-cons supposed to hold down a job on parole?

Also there are plenty who can and have turned their lives around.

Like?

[Lancer]

Imran, couldn't there be different laws for different aged kids? Like a 5 year old boy being molested by a 50 year old guy should be considered differently than an 18 year old boy and 17 year old girl doing what comes natural. Couldn't the law be written differently for these cases?

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Oh. You didn't tell me we were talking about monsters. Honestly, I'm harsher than you are on these guys. I don't think the justice system should even apply to monsters. I think police officers should shoot monsters on sight. I think, in fact, that a portion of our government should be dedicated to hunting down and killing monsters because they represent a supernatural threat to national security. You know, something like the Men in Black, except more violent.

United States citizens, on the other hand, I would treat a bit differently.

I'm talking about citizens who are monsters,but you knew that.

[Lorizael]

And I think dehumanizing them by calling them monsters allows our society to treat them as if they aren't citizens without feeling guilty. Did you know that?

[Lancer]

They don't need me calling them monsters to be inhuman.