California Voters

[One Eyed Cat]

Please vote to Pass Jessica's Law in November. I do not believe the initiative goes far enough, but it is a tremendous improvement on California's ineptitude in protecting children. The bill did not even pass committee in the legislature. It is now being submitted to the voters. Take a stand and pass this Initiative!




Voters in other states can check the status of similar legislation/initiatives in their state. Contact your state representatives for more information.

OEC

[Amelia G]

Summary of what the law is and why you support it?

[One Eyed Cat]

Key Provisions

• ELECTRONICALLY MONITORS SEX OFFENDERS FOR LIFE
  • Requires registered sex offenders released on parole to wear a GPS tracking device for life.
  • Requires offenders to pay for their own GPS equipment, if they are financially able.
• PREDATOR-FREE ZONES
  • Prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park.
  • Allows local governments to include additional sites they deem appropriate, such as a water park.
• EXPANDS SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR (SVP) PROGRAM
  • Allows for the designation of predators as “sexually violent” after one offense, rather than waiting for them to strike twice.
  • Allows for indefinite commitment to a state hospital (like other states with an SVP program) until the SVP can prove to a court they no longer fit the criteria.
  • Requires SVP’s parole period to toll while in the state hospital so they still have to serve their parole time after discharge.
• INCREASES PAROLE TERMS
  • Provides for parole terms of up to 10 years for the most heinous sex offenses (current law provides for parole terms from 3-5 years for various sex offenses).
• ELIMINATES “GOOD-TIME” CREDITS FOR SEX OFFENDERS
  • Keeps habitual sex offenders off the streets by denying the opportunity to reduce prison terms through the use of good-time credits.
• PROTECTS CHILDREN FROM INTERNET LURING
  • Allows law-enforcement to act as decoys in order to engage and capture internet predators.
• INCREASES PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
  • Allows possession of child pornography to be prosecuted as a felony.
  • Makes possession of child pornography a felony if the offender has a prior sex offense conviction.
• CRACKS DOWN ON RAPISTS THAT DRUG THEIR VICTIMS
  • Imposes an additional 5-year prison term for persons who drug their victims in the commission of specified sexual crimes, such as ****.
• INCREASES SENTENCES AND FINES ACROSS THE BOARD
  • Expands and strengthens our basic sexual assault punishment statutes, including those for “One-Strike” Sex Crimes, “Habitual Sex Offenders,” and “Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child.”
  • Increases the penalty to life imprisonment for kidnapping for the purpose of child molestation and for assault with the intent to commit sex crimes during a residential burglary.
  • Expands the requirement for mandatory prison sentences and mandatory consecutive sentences for sex crimes.
  • Addendum: 15 to 25 for life for first offense on under 14. Life for second violent offense

I support it because my friend's cousin would still be alive had these laws been in effect. I do not believe in deterrence or rehabillitation for these offenders.

OEC

[Pull~My~Hair]

wow, I thought this was already in effect in all states...Cant imagine it won't pass.

[One Eyed Cat]

wow, I thought this was already in effect in all states...Cant imagine it won't pass.

It's polling at 70%. I'm sure it will pass.

OEC

[deathrockjill]

That set of laws needs a lot of work. With penalties like that, kidnappers and rapists are just going to murder their victims so they can't be caught as easily. How are they going to define a sexual predator? If a 19 year old dates a 16 year old is that going to mean they have the same limits on where they can live as some sicko 50 year old who ***** and tortures a 4 year old?

[ForrestBlack]

I'm honestly not super comfortable with expanding the entrapment abilities online. The last thing the world needs in a bunch of fake 14 year olds with pictures of themselves in their underwear, trying to get guys to come over and fuck them. On the overall, I think that will do more harm than good. Widescale vice enticement can weaken people's natural resistance by giving the false impression that the acts are more prevalent than they really are. If cops want to pose as streetwalkers or whatever, that's fine, but having the authorities posting underage pseudoporn is just kinda gross, and in my opinion detrimental to an otherwise mostly healthy society. I would hate for real girls to see things like that and decide it was appropriate behaviour online.

[Pull~My~Hair]

That set of laws needs a lot of work. With penalties like that, kidnappers and rapists are just going to murder their victims so they can't be caught as easily. How are they going to define a sexual predator? If a 19 year old dates a 16 year old is that going to mean they have the same limits on where they can live as some sicko 50 year old who ***** and tortures a 4 year old?

there are different laws in every state but there is a limit, like statutory **** (having sex with someone unerage who is at least 3 years younger than you) has a different set of guidelines, this law has been in effect in my state for several years and has decreased the number of sex crimes against minors significantly. Statutory **** gives 36 months of probation on average , no jail time, and even less if the girl says it was consensual. This lawy is by all means fair, and in some circumstances even leniant. As far as Im concerned they should be castrated without a second thought.

[Pull~My~Hair]

I'm honestly not super comfortable with expanding the entrapment abilities online. The last thing the world needs in a bunch of fake 14 year olds with pictures of themselves in their underwear, trying to get guys to come over and fuck them. On the overall, I think that will do more harm than good. Widescale vice enticement can weaken people's natural resistance by giving the false impression that the acts are more prevalent than they really are. If cops want to pose as streetwalkers or whatever, that's fine, but having the authorities posting underage pseudoporn is just kinda gross, and in my opinion detrimental to an otherwise mostly healthy society. I would hate for real girls to see things like that and decide it was appropriate behaviour online.

this I agree with you about.
I also believe that there is a point for parents taking responisbility for how they raised their children , for teenage girls to behave the way they do.
For instance,
recently in the news a man was arrested for making sexual comments to a 12 year old Girl on My Space. The thing is, in the girls profile it said she was 17, and she had a suggestive My space layout. As far as I see it, this is that girls fault,and her parents fault no 12 year old should have complete access to the internet, and her parents should've taught her better than that. The guy was doing what every other guy does on there, although yes it still said she was underage, 17 and 12 are two completely differnt things. anyhow...

[deathrockjill]

this I agree with you about.
I also believe that there is a point for parents taking responisbility for how they raised their children , for teenage girls to behave the way they do.
For instance,
recently in the news a man was arrested for making sexual comments to a 12 year old Girl on My Space. The thing is, in the girls profile it said she was 17, and she had a suggestive My space layout. As far as I see it, this is that girls fault,and her parents fault no 12 year old should have complete access to the internet, and her parents should've taught her better than that. The guy was doing what every other guy does on there, although yes it still said she was underage, 17 and 12 are two completely differnt things. anyhow...

12 and 17 are different, but is that guy a sex offender who has to pay for being electronically monitored as a sex offender by the government for the rest of his life now? That is some Orwell nightmare.

[ForrestBlack]

Also, I think there should be rules against naming laws for abused children and such. People should be able to talk about the substance, not the overdramatized packaging. I'm certain I could get some real asinine stuff to poll high just by associating it with some emotional knee jerk sob story and a tragically cute picture of a little girl or whatever. Law is law and should not be unreasonably clouded with emotion. It's about doing what is right, not torches and pitchforks mob mentality.

[ForrestBlack]

One important note on this issue:

Ever since Fox purchased *******, some of the competing news organizations have been dramatically increasing the amount of airtime they are giving to stories regarding 'sexual predators' interacting with helpless underage girls on that site. They keep telling parents to pull their children off of it and warning all their viewers that the site is full of dirty depraved old men waiting to do horrible things. The fact of the matter is that it was a significant media purchase for Fox that got them a substantial captive audience in key demographics and some people in other news organizations are mad about it. So, they smear it with any dirt they can dig up.

It's simply underhanded competitive business packaged as a human interest emergency.

[Pull~My~Hair]

12 and 17 are different, but is that guy a sex offender who has to pay for being electronically monitored as a sex offender by the government for the rest of his life now? That is some Orwell nightmare.

he never actually assulted her, he wont be monitored, I would look up the law and read more about it, as far as what constitutes assult

[One Eyed Cat]

I'm honestly not super comfortable with expanding the entrapment abilities online. The last thing the world needs in a bunch of fake 14 year olds with pictures of themselves in their underwear, trying to get guys to come over and fuck them. On the overall, I think that will do more harm than good. Widescale vice enticement can weaken people's natural resistance by giving the false impression that the acts are more prevalent than they really are. If cops want to pose as streetwalkers or whatever, that's fine, but having the authorities posting underage pseudoporn is just kinda gross, and in my opinion detrimental to an otherwise mostly healthy society. I would hate for real girls to see things like that and decide it was appropriate behaviour online.

They pose as underage girls to catch potential offenders. They don't post any porn. It is borderline entrapment, I suppose. wwww.perverted-justice.com is already doing it.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

this I agree with you about.
I also believe that there is a point for parents taking responisbility for how they raised their children , for teenage girls to behave the way they do.
For instance,
recently in the news a man was arrested for making sexual comments to a 12 year old Girl on My Space. The thing is, in the girls profile it said she was 17, and she had a suggestive My space layout. As far as I see it, this is that girls fault,and her parents fault no 12 year old should have complete access to the internet, and her parents should've taught her better than that. The guy was doing what every other guy does on there, although yes it still said she was underage, 17 and 12 are two completely differnt things. anyhow...

It specifies under 14 in the bill. Also, those punishments are for violent offenders and habitual rapists, not just making comments.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

Also, I think there should be rules against naming laws for abused children and such. People should be able to talk about the substance, not the overdramatized packaging. I'm certain I could get some real asinine stuff to poll high just by associating it with some emotional knee jerk sob story and a tragically cute picture of a little girl or whatever. Law is law and should not be unreasonably clouded with emotion. It's about doing what is right, not torches and pitchforks mob mentality.

Perhaps. The parents tend to be on the frontlines working for these bills, however. They aren't being named against their will.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

One important note on this issue:

Ever since Fox purchased *******, some of the competing news organizations have been dramatically increasing the amount of airtime they are giving to stories regarding 'sexual predators' interacting with helpless underage girls on that site. They keep telling parents to pull their children off of it and warning all their viewers that the site is full of dirty depraved old men waiting to do horrible things. The fact of the matter is that it was a significant media purchase for Fox that got them a substantial captive audience in key demographics and some people in other news organizations are mad about it. So, they smear it with any dirt they can dig up.

It's simply underhanded competitive business packaged as a human interest emergency.

In general, Fox covers these stories more than the other news organizations. Bill O'Reilly documents light sentences for offenders. The mydisgrace incidents may have that specific effect, but this has been covered in depth for years now.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

They pose as underage girls to catch potential offenders. They don't post any porn. It is borderline entrapment, I suppose. wwww.perverted-justice.com is already doing it.

OEC

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

They clearly want broader powers to pose as vulnerable little girls, as outlined in what you reposted above. It's not a matter of porn or not porn, it's a matter of making fake profiles of oversexed underage girls (and boys) to solicit illegal acts. If they could limit this activity to areas where there were only sex offenders, I might have a different view, but teens model their behaviour on what they see their peers doing, so setting up fake accounts to encourage illegal acts through provocation and enticement on wide scale social networking systems under the guise of child protection simply has too many downsides and negative side effects for me to support. I'm all for catching bad guys, but you have to be careful with you put out there for good and innocent people to see as well.

[ForrestBlack]

Perhaps. The parents tend to be on the frontlines working for these bills, however. They aren't being named against their will.

OEC

And that makes them rational on the point?

If somebody wrongs me, what I want to do in return is not always legal or even reasonable, that is why we have laws and not mobs, so appealing to mob mentality through overly dramatic symbolism might not be the best way to craft our laws.

[One Eyed Cat]

And that makes them rational on the point?

If somebody wrongs me, what I want to do in return is not always legal or even reasonable, that is why we have laws and not mobs, so appealing to mob mentality through overly dramatic symbolism might not be the best way to craft our laws.

Looking at this issue as a whole, I see these laws as reasonable. I don't think the commercialization of tragedy is an argument for or against them. If they are found to be unconstitutional (and elements of this bill may be) the courts will strike them down.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

If a sex offender is not allowed to live within 2000 ft of a school or park, where exactly are they supposed to live? Look at a map of your city and ask yourself, where is half a mile from any school or park? Not a lot of places. Now a lot of people are saying, "good, I don't want a child rapist living in my town anyway" but that does not answer the questions where do these people live, and what happens to them once they are homeless?

But if you don't care about the offender, let's think of the children. Will this law really protect them?

According to the DoJ website Facts about sex offenders:

Most men who commit sexual offenses do not know their victim.

False. 90% of child victims know their offender, with almost half of the offenders being a family member. Of sexual assaults against people age 12 and up, approximately 80% of the victims know the offender.

Most child sexual abusers find their victims by frequenting such places as schoolyards and playgrounds.

False. Most child sexual abusers offend against children whom they know and with whom they have established a relationship. Many sexual assaults of adult women are considered "confidence *****," in that the offender knows the victim and has used that familiarity to gain access to her.

And this is even before we get into the crimes that can get your registered as a sex offender, the terrifying prospect of being allowed to declair someone insane and hold them indefinately, and manditory sentencing.

Now I hates me some rapists like you wouldn't believe. If someone ***** a friend or loved one the odds of me doing something biblical to them would be very high. I believe that any repeat offender of a malicious violent crime (murder, meyhem, molestation, or ****) should be eligible ofr the death penalty. However the law does little to really protect people. If you really want to protect children get the cops to enforce speed limits. If you really want to protect children get them health care. Or even re-write this law without GPS tracking, preditor free zones and all the other feel good crap that makes us feel safe without actually making us safer.

[One Eyed Cat]

If a sex offender is not allowed to live within 2000 ft of a school or park, where exactly are they supposed to live? Look at a map of your city and ask yourself, where is half a mile from any school or park? Not a lot of places. Now a lot of people are saying, "good, I don't want a child rapist living in my town anyway" but that does not answer the questions where do these people live, and what happens to them once they are homeless?

But if you don't care about the offender, let's think of the children. Will this law really protect them?

According to the DoJ website Facts about sex offenders:



And this is even before we get into the crimes that can get your registered as a sex offender, the terrifying prospect of being allowed to declair someone insane and hold them indefinately, and manditory sentencing.

Now I hates me some rapists like you wouldn't believe. If someone ***** a friend or loved one the odds of me doing something biblical to them would be very high. I believe that any repeat offender of a malicious violent crime (murder, meyhem, molestation, or ****) should be eligible ofr the death penalty. However the law does little to really protect people. If you really want to protect children get the cops to enforce speed limits. If you really want to protect children get them health care. Or even re-write this law without GPS tracking, preditor free zones and all the other feel good crap that makes us feel safe without actually making us safer.

Ironically, the laws were much lighter on offenders who ***** children they were related to. "Circle of Trust" Laws are just now being passed to close the gap. As for children's safety, this problem will never go away completely. It protects children as 1 by 1 by 1 offenders are eliminated from society. I believe in retributive justice in these instances. I know it won't eliminate these offenses.

I might agree with you on health care and speed limits, but we have to take it one issue at a time. I believe a society is (and should be) judged by its protection of children, the infirm, and the elderly. This has to include both encouraging their wellbeing and punishing those who would negate it.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

Looking at this issue as a whole, I see these laws as reasonable. I don't think the commercialization of tragedy is an argument for or against them. If they are found to be unconstitutional (and elements of this bill may be) the courts will strike them down.

OEC

You can not turn a blind eye toward the details of anything that takes someone's rights as a citizen away permanently. You can not simply judge the spirit of a law, you must study the real life implications and ramifications. That goes for any major statute.

And yes, I am aware of the notion that I may have issues with some of the language of the 14th amendment. I don't think we should have a society with citizens who can't vote, no matter what their background is. If a crime is so bad a man is no longer allowed to vote, it should be judged worthy of the death penalty or extradition first. I think the disenfranchised need to feel like they still count in order to better motivate them to be good and proper citizens.

[One Eyed Cat]

You can not turn a blind eye toward the details of anything that takes someone's rights as a citizen away permanently. You can not simply judge the spirit of a law, you must study the real life implications and ramifications. That goes for any major statute.

And yes, I am aware of the notion that I may have issues with some of the language of the 14th amendment. I don't think we should have a society with citizens who can't vote, no matter what their background is. If a crime is so bad a man is no longer allowed to vote, it should be judged worthy of the death penalty or extradition first. I think the disenfranchised need to feel like they still count in order to better motivate them to be good and proper citizens.

I believe that, barring the death penalty, the most egregious offenders should have their rights taken away. Civil commitment and registration have passed judicial review. I've read the text of the California and Pennsylvania Bills. The only questions I would have regard property forfeiture and what constitutes aiding and abetting. I don't have a problem with felons voting in principle (is that what you are referring to?)

OEC

[Morning Glory]

the fact is that nearly every person who commits an act of sexual abuse has been sexually abused themselves in the past. I know this is hard to accept but we need to understand that we aren't just dealing with a criminal here, we're dealing with a victim. so how does that fit into our system? where's the justice for the kid that's been so trauatmized and beat into the notion that a human being is worthless that he thinks that's the normal way of dealing with people?

these people are not criminals, they are insane.
a criminal is someone that commits an act with the intention of breaking a law because they've rationalized that it's worth it if they can get away with it. we can all understand why someone would rob a bank, because most of us want money, we just don't think it's worth breaking the law to get it.
an insane person is someone that commits an action without any understanding of the consequences and has no way of rationalizing it. this is pretty obvious, we all know there is no reason to **** a child, or anyone for that matter, and anyone who would do so is plainly incapable of rational thought.

The entire basis of punishment for crimes is that the person knew that the crime was wrong but did it anyway because they thought it was worth it. after administering punishment, the thoery is that they will realize it is not worth it, and not do it again.

but what is the point of punishing someone who DOESN'T know that it is wrong? this will not make them realize that it is wrong, and so it will not stop them from doing it again.

What these people need is to be put into a secure facility so that they cannot harm the general public- and NOT one that's full of crime and violence. the goal of this should be to administer therapy so that we can take broken damaged people and fix them so that we can find a way to use it in the future to help other kids like them BEFORE they become adults and repeat the same behaviour. will this work? I don't know because we've never tried it.

Our prison system is a joke. It pretty much exists for the sole purpose of putting criminals out of sight and out of mind, so we don't have to ever think about the fact that what we do as a society is what causes crime, and clear our consciences about it. face the facts, nothing we have ever done has stopped people from commiting crimes. every year people keep breaking every single law we have. We need to do something else that works. We need to take people that are a danger to society and keep them away from the general population in a place that doesn't encourage them to keep doing what they are doing. We need to take mentally damaged people and deal with them as I said before. We need to take the other 70% of the people in prisons and rehabiliate them, instead of punishing them for making a stupid judgement call and then leaving them with crime as the only option for survival upon reentering society.

[One Eyed Cat]

This law provides for civil commitment for these offenders. They can only be released if a Judge so orders.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I believe a society is (and should be) judged by its protection of children, the infirm, and the elderly. This has to include both encouraging their wellbeing and punishing those who would negate it.

OEC

This is where we disagree. I believe a society should be judged by how it treats all of it's citizens, even the capable adults and criminals.

I have no problem with punishment in the legal system, but I do have a problem with revenge.

[Toe Cutter]

I believe that, barring the death penalty, the most egregious offenders should have their rights taken away. Civil commitment and registration have passed judicial review.

OEC

I completely agree. Sexual criminals of any nature should be delt with in the harshest of terms. Personally I do believe in revenge in cases such as those. Heavy handed corporal revenge. I'd like to see them put into the general prison population and not segregated like they are now.

Calling those bastards the victims and suggesting that they might deserve empathy because 'they know not what they do' gives them way too much leeway considering the nature of the crimes.

[Toe Cutter]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

That is some Orwell nightmare.

Your both right.


I guess for me I get confused seperating emotion from what's truly the right thing to do.

[One Eyed Cat]

This is where we disagree. I believe a society should be judged by how it treats all of it's citizens, even the capable adults and criminals.

I have no problem with punishment in the legal system, but I do have a problem with revenge.

I think our definitions of retributivism v. revenge are too different to argue. I did not intend the protection of children, the disabled, and the elderly as a *complete* definition of a society's worth, however. A lot of factors are in play: Equal opportunity, the environment and wildlife, the basic dignity of its citizens. My sense is we may disagree as to what role government plays in promoting the wellbeing of society. At any rate, your perspective is perfectly valid.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

I completely agree. Sexual criminals of any nature should be delt with in the harshest of terms. Personally I do believe in revenge in cases such as those. Heavy handed corporal revenge. I'd like to see them put into the general prison population and not segregated like they are now.

Calling those bastards the victims and suggesting that they might deserve empathy because 'they know not what they do' gives them way too much leeway considering the nature of the crimes.

I concur. The "victimization" of predators is, to me, a dangerous trend.

OEC

[Pull~My~Hair]

this is what I know,
the day afgter I turned 14 I was ***** by several guys, I only knew one of them, i recieved death threats and was followed for 8 months before I finally told someone, by that time there was no physical evidence, all they could prove was statutory ****. The guy served 36 months of probation, before he even finished his probation they found one of his prior victims (a 12 year old) ***** and killed. By this time I had moved across the state to a very rural town. They found him less than a mile from my house when he was arrested. If this wouldve been taken more seriously then this little girl wouldve been alive to this day.
The scar tissue from the **** cause cervical cancer in me, If this asshole who had a prior stat. charge wouldve been locked up, I wouldnt have cancer either. I know there is no way of protecting EVERYONES rights, there never will be, but when he made the decision to do the things he did he gave up his rights.

[Pull~My~Hair]

I dont believe these people can rehabilitated. I know their victims can never live down what happened to them, this is something that the victim has to live the rest of their life with, the offender should do the same. An alcoholic is weak against alcohol, so they stay away from it, a child molester is weak against being around children, they shouldnt be around them either. Rapists are rapists, they shouldnt be around women, they should be locked up in a male institute the rest of their lives.
If someone kills someone they go to jail no one worries about their rehabilitation, they serve their time, I think rapists should do the same.

[One Eyed Cat]

this is what I know,
the day afgter I turned 14 I was ***** by several guys, I only knew one of them, i recieved death threats and was followed for 8 months before I finally told someone, by that time there was no physical evidence, all they could prove was statutory ****. The guy served 36 months of probation, before he even finished his probation they found one of his prior victims (a 12 year old) ***** and killed. By this time I had moved across the state to a very rural town. They found him less than a mile from my house when he was arrested. If this wouldve been taken more seriously then this little girl wouldve been alive to this day.
The scar tissue from the **** cause cervical cancer in me, If this asshole who had a prior stat. charge wouldve been locked up, I wouldnt have cancer either. I know there is no way of protecting EVERYONES rights, there never will be, but when he made the decision to do the things he did he gave up his rights.

My deepest sympathies. If these laws had been effect, another family would not now be suffering. This happened to the family of a friend of mine. I believe that these offenders constitute a separate category from most criminals. They should be incarcerated and then committed to psychiatric hospitals for life. Barring that, they must be kept away from children. I believe Jessica's Law to be a step in the right direction.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

I dont believe these people can rehabilitated. I know their victims can never live down what happened to them, this is something that the victim has to live the rest of their life with, the offender should do the same. An alcoholic is weak against alcohol, so they stay away from it, a child molester is weak against being around children, they shouldnt be around them either. Rapists are rapists, they shouldnt be around women, they should be locked up in a male institute the rest of their lives.
If someone kills someone they go to jail no one worries about their rehabilitation, they serve their time, I think rapists should do the same.

OEC

[Morning Glory]

whatever, this is all bullshit. It reminds me of the movie minority report. If we just euthanized everyone who wasn't part of the aryan race at birth we wouldn't have any crimes. sounds extreme? It doesn't sound like a far fetch when you advocate that we should put people in prison based soley on the testimony of a single person without any evidence Before they even commit a crime to prevent it from happening. Sure maybe some fucked up shit has happened to you, it's happen to me too and people I love... I've also gotten harrased when walking down the street by cops and eyeball fucked by "good citizens" that was sure I was about to commit a crime. I believe in the notion of Innocent until proven guilty, and I can't really see anything that's going to make me change my mind about that. It might make you feel better, but it wil do absolutly nothing to stop crime. I care a lot more about other people not being a victim then getting revenge on someone for wronging me. and you may say that's not what it is, but if you advocate no sympathy and no rehabilitation and pure malicious punishment, then that's exactly and exclusivly what it is.

[Pull~My~Hair]

whatever, this is all bullshit. It reminds me of the movie minority report. If we just euthanized everyone who wasn't part of the aryan race at birth we wouldn't have any crimes. sounds extreme? It doesn't sound like a far fetch when you advocate that we should put people in prison based soley on the testimony of a single person without any evidence Before they even commit a crime to prevent it from happening. Sure maybe some fucked up shit has happened to you, it's happen to me too and people I love... I've also gotten harrased when walking down the street by cops and eyeball fucked by "good citizens" that was sure I was about to commit a crime. I believe in the notion of Innocent until proven guilty, and I can't really see anything that's going to make me change my mind about that. It might make you feel better, but it wil do absolutly nothing to stop crime. I care a lot more about other people not being a victim then getting revenge on someone for wronging me. and you may say that's not what it is, but if you advocate no sympathy and no rehabilitation and pure malicious punishment, then that's exactly and exclusivly what it is.

im sorry but to me you sound as if you are supporting these acts. By not taking away their rights you are taking away rights of the victim. Ive tried but there is no way I can see from your point of view on this. We are talking about people who HAVE been proven guilty. 78% of the time these people strike again, why give a 78% chance of something this awful happening again?
Yes I do support malicious punishment, and if the world was fair these men would be locked up and ass *****, so i believe the justice system is leniant. They are still being released, so what they cant live next to a school, if they were rehabilited they wouldnt want to live next to a school, just because they arent acting on their urges after "rehab" doesnt mean they dont want to, so why be tempted?I dont know any recovering Alcoholics that hang out at bars.And rapists and such that actually feel some type of remorse for what they do generally isolate themselves anyhow, as well they should.

[Pull~My~Hair]

also morning glory, I understand as far as the innocent til proven guilty, Im talking about people who have been proven guilty as far as physical evidence and confessions, not circumstansial shit

[Morning Glory]

blanketly labelling people into a category and dehumanzing them to the point of not even examinging relevent personal details just to appease your own vindication, regardless of who else it hurts makes you just the same as the mentality of a rapist, in my book.

PS. That's the Rhetorical You, I'm not syaing that this examplifies any particular member(s) of this board.

[Pull~My~Hair]

wow you are oblivious
I know many people who were victimized as a child who are upstanding people, two wrongs dont make a right