ajmrowland wrote:Lazario wrote:You must have watched Disney's Too Smart for Strangers video one too many times. Unless I'm missing something and your neighborhood has a high rate of Adults knocking on the doors of houses when no other Adults are home, then answering the child's, "who's there?!", with an "I'm a friend of your Mommy's (or Daddy's); can I come in? I need to talk to you." To which the child is smart enough to open the door, because it could be that guy from that home-remodeling show on TV disguising his voice as someone the child's Mommy (or Daddy) knows to trick them. Or to which the child is foolish enough to open, thinking it's probably the guy from that home-remodeling show on TV. Or a singing-telegram come to wish the kid a Happy Birthday, even though it isn't their Birthday for another 2 months. Maybe it's a Pamela Anderson strip-o-gram and she's disguising her voice as a man to trick the kid, even though I don't think she offers that service- professionally.
I was joking around with that part. It was the only thing I could do to keep my respect for Divinity intact - which I've now lost wholesale.
Siren wrote:The list is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. Crime is PUBLIC knowledge in MOST countries. You can legally do a background check on anyone. And if you know how to do it and where to look, you don't even have to pay for it. Very easy to get backgroud info for free these days. I'm not talking about accusations, I am talking about these people have been convicted of crimes.
Let's not get fluffy and try to blur the lines here. What about anything I said before- I'd very much like your input on that. We both know that if someone were registered as a recovering pyromaniac (not necessarily an arsonist who had actually caused a couple hundred thou worth of property damage) or a kleptomaniac who had done their time, people would not organize lynch mobs to harass them or try to force them out of their neighborhood no matter where they lived. With just about any other crime the public have learned to at least try to give people a second chance. However, when it comes to sex crimes we know most criminals already are traumatized, damaged people trying to overcome a lot of personal problems before they committed a crime and are trying to get their heads together. And we can't re-write the law to put people to death just because they molested a child once. Which hell, I might be all for since - if you remember my stance on capitol punishment - it would be a lot more humane to do so. And at least then people who stop getting so damn self-righteous about protecting
their children. Which if you keep reading, I'll mention why that bugs me.
It's really not anyone else's business that they once committed a crime. Not to mention it means prolonging the victim's pain. Making the crime and the perpetrator public, doesn't that mean the victim is kept public as well? And people insisting they need to know only prove they're insecure, paranoid, and maybe even bad parents. Like I said before - you should already have a system for dealing with people who might want to harm your child. You can't count on knowing who they will be beforehand. If you're really concerned with safety, quit moaning about identification of recovering criminals and make sure your child is ready to handle the mofo's you
don't know about! Hell, look back at the previous pages- your kids could be killed (KILLED) at school over freaking text messages!! That's a far more pressing issue than this. You can't organize protection by way of lists. You have to train for it. You have to know what to do instinctually, not expect someone else will do it for you.
Oh and something else, this really isn't to you Siren... Why would any adult leave their children alone with another adult anyway? Have you guys not heard the stories about how most assaults and sexual crimes are committed by someone the child knows? A family member or a friend of the family?? This thing with you guys saying you need the lists comes off as you want some kind of sign that you can trust adults alone with your children. Guess what? You never could. And I'm not even paranoid- I'm realistic (when I'm not joking around). Like I said, you can't ever really know what's going on inside someone's head and a list won't tell you anything. Your children are in far greater danger from people who are not on a list.
Siren wrote:I see a perfectly good thing in these lists. For example, I want to know all the adults in my area who have molested young children. I want to know who these people are so I don't let my child near them, I don't hire them to do any sort of work in or around my home, etc.
And do you have any statistics that these kinds of criminals never recover? You're talking about these people as if they're dogs who can't stop themselves from humping legs! And really, if you think they're so dangerous than you would assume they're smarter than dogs. It takes planning to commit a crime like this. I think you're guilty of not knowing anything about the crime itself. Or the psychology of a sex criminal.
Siren wrote:To make compiling public knowledge into a list a crime, is impossible and stupid in itself. Why make criminal prosecution public, but make compiling that information together a crime?
I'm sure that made complete sense upstairs where you are, but downstairs is where we all are, Siren. Come back to us...
If you're trying to say there is a hypocrasy inherent in that dynamic, you'd be completely right. We are a nation obsessed with Crime Culture. So, we push our rights of freedom of the press into every courtroom and we gain access to anything we want to read into, any story we want to hear about just because we're junkies and it makes good drama. But it's trash, for us to want to get involved in everything even though we're not involved. So the way it usually goes is the media focuses on it when it's hot. Popular. Like a show. They give the criminal attention so people will pay attention to
them - news shows, reporters, journalists, commentators. Then when it's not hot anymore, the show is over and the actors go back to their regular lives. Based on that routine, you wouldn't think the criminal had any rights to privacy.
But you know something? Every person in America has rights. We don't all need them (all of them). Criminals don't need all of them. However, the criminals still have rights. And clearly I'm someone who thinks we should bend the rules because few rules are ever that fair. It depends on the circumstances. You seem to think that everyone who commits any serious crime should have their whole lives destroyed. But again, we can't kill every one of them just because it makes vigilantes happy. Or because it might ease the suffering of a victim. Doesn't anybody remember Ghandi? Well, I think the real message that would benefit society is: 2 Wrongs Don't Make a Right. And the public can't be trusted with information like this. Because we're such a Vigilante Society and we're also a "Two Dozen Bad Apples Ruin the Whole Bunch" society as well. This isn't even an issue of one person will use the information as a legal means to torture someone else. Dozens of people would. It's the rare exception who would ever be able to use the information responsibly.
Why would someone want to make providing that information a crime? Because of the way people react to receiving the information. It promotes and glorifies irresponsible behavior. It takes no responsibility for the way people react. You think everyone is like you? I know you're deep-down mature and sensible. But guess what? You're the exception. The rare case of a person
I would trust with information like that.
Siren wrote:News organizations do it all the time to discuss sex crimes, they do articles, describing many different criminals, all who committed similar offenses. Blocking that infomation gathering and sharing...That is stepping on freedom of speech.
There is obviously a conflict of rights / freedoms here. I see the whole purpose of a list that identifies previous-child molestors as Defamation of Character. Not because the person didn't commit the crime and weren't sick at the time they did, but because we all know 99% of people who hear they did it think automatically: they're going to do it again! And they're going to do it to some kid I know! You know it's true as well. That is defamation of character. And no one has the right to say the person deserves it. That's not anyone's call to make other than the victim. And we shouldn't keep a record of who the victim was to protect their freedom. But if you want to make this right, the way to start is to do conferences with the victim in each case. To publically discuss what they think should be done to the criminal's life. And for that to happen, it's not nice to do this but it's only fair - a psychologist would have to examine the victims to make sure they're in an appropriate state of mind to talk unemotionally about what legal rights a person should have.
As for your freedom of speech... Well, you're talking morally now. So, I'll answer back morally (so keep in mind this is as wrong as your point fundamentally is) : you don't have any rights over what the criminal who victimized someone else might do to you or your family... based on what they did do to someone else. You can't automatically argue: they'll do it again, just because they did it once. You should be taking responsibility for your opinions in matters this serious and look at all the facts objectively. Besides, don't cry about how you think the public's freedom of speech has been neglected if the real issue here is physical safety. You can't play 2 cards at once.
Siren wrote:Shall we make criminal prosecution something that happens behind closed doors, make it so juries and all those involved in the court proceedings swear to secrecy like its the CIA?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLMF5GM0Kt8
Take the stairs, Siren. They're reliable. It's okay, they're sturdier than they look.
Siren wrote:The best way to combat people abusing the list is educating people.
I know I'm being very cynical here, but you know as well as I do what people are like. Some people don't want to be educated and won't be. People are too lazy for groups and careful organizations and thoughtful watches. And love to let fear and wild delusions ride on Autopilot.
Siren wrote:On the handicapped adult (he wasn't a kid), how about we do away with criminally prosecuting someone like that in the FIRST PLACE. How about ending statutory rape? You want to kill the wrong thing here. The list isn't the enemy. Its overzealous prosecutors and judges who are to blame. You are taking a couple of examples of how it can be used wrong and assuming its all wrong.
Not me. I didn't even know about these examples. I'm coming from the point of view of knowing about people's crazy ideas that everyone who committed a crime is still at risk for doing it again. I personally am a lot more skeptical of killers than one-time molestors. And don't forget we both know first-hand how crimes of violation over our bodies never leave you. I'm a victim too. But you're way on the other side of the way we see the issue. Because I also have first-hand experience in SEEING and FEELING the heat from dozens of people, people who gravitate toward this issue because they feel impotent or persecuted in their lives, the misplaced anger that leads them to believe a person who committed a sex crime is not a tortured person (which they often if not usually are) but are instead an un-rehabilitate-able pervert. And that leads to a landslide of people who may start to think I was made gay because I was physically violated or that all people who were violated (whether it's sexually or violently) will violate someone else. Psycho begets psycho, delusions manifest into other delusions. I know- I've seen it with my own eyes. And that affects everyone eventually. And gives power to the weakness people try to combat by being confrontational on issues like these when instead we should carefully be thinking it through.
And that's just where what I'm talking about above leads them even further. It only gets worse when you give the public at large what you want to give them. What you think they can handle. Very few people can.
Siren wrote:When in actuality, most of the people on that list, are down right sickos. Most are adult men who had sex with kids 16 and under, and even more so who had sex or molested children 11 and under. I listed a few isolated incidents on how people use the list incorrectly. In a majority of cases, the lists can save lives.
How? We have examples of how the lists have been abused. But when has the list actually stopped a molestation / rape that you or someone using the list knew was going to happen?
Even if the list could stop something like that, it wouldn't. Because if the people on that list were planning to do it again, how would you really know? The list is still a vigilante tool. A way of people punishing the criminals over and over again because they want them to be killed and can't legally have it done. I don't blame that feeling. We all want revenge when even the slightest thing goes wrong that we feel isn't our fault. I personally have felt anger I can't describe because of how viciously I was abused and how sick it made me. You would think I'd be even more extreme in your direction than what you're saying. And I shouldn't blame anyone for wanting to get involved. But just because you have children does not mean they are targeted by every single person who ever molested someone. You're being very cartoony about all this. And that's coming from someone who, like I said, has had unbelievable battles with myself after being victimized. Maybe one day I'll get so mad at you, I'll take photographs of my wrists to show you. Yet despite that, I think you're somewhat in the wrong. Do you see where that could be?
Siren wrote:I check it every year before Halloween too.
Oh God...
No! That's actually really good thinking. Not only does the Pervert buy candy which costs him/her money, but also the kids don't eat it, so they have to. Which makes them fat. So not only do you punish them by not dangling "meat" in front of their face, you have to make them too scared to even look in the mirror. Brilliant plan. It's so subversive.
I'm sorry, Siren- but you deserved that. That paragraph was absurd in every form. You are telling us Halloween is a parade that will tease any one-time offender. Wow, you know something we don't. Because again - parents and children know that kids don't go in other people's houses. So, if that's your fear, you're silly. But parents around my way don't even let kids go out alone OR in groups with their friends without an adult!! Not anymore. And yeah, I assume that's the way it is everywhere pretty much. So, if your fear is that some person is just going to snatch a kid up right off the doorstep like
THIS... well, fill in the blank.
Siren wrote:Technically, they aren't suppose to invite kids to their homes anyways. And I did call the cops on a local pedophile who did leave his light on and was giving kids candy. Cops came and took him away. He had previously been arrested and convicted for raping a 6 year old boy. Morally and legally, he was wrong to be participating in Halloween.
How times have changed... When I grew up, you just gave the kids candy. Or you were going to hell. And the kids would gladly take you there. And still, though it was the 80's... WE DIDN'T GO INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSES. Isn't that funny? I'm sure you would have wanted us to know it wasn't completely safe to just go to anyone's doorstep. We did though. And we didn't take adults with us (although if we did, we'd get more candy because they had a ride). Not even in the mid-90's. And nobody ever got snatched. Or killed. Or raped. Or molested. Or joined a cult. Believe me- we would've known. Gossip of every form, even among adults, was hot like Venus. You couldn't even hide a pimple! But still, we didn't go into people's houses. Funny how parents today on the whole think kids have gotten dumber. Or that there is a new toll adults have set up where you get candy in exchange for a little touchy-feely. And yet, kids are more protected the more parental intrusion they have in their lives.
If only it could save them from suicide, though. Isn't that strange? The parents only seem to care about protecting kids from adults.
Siren wrote:If you check the Florida list yourself, you will see, statutory rape criminals are few and far between. Sadly, most the criminals on there, are the monsters we should really fear. The ones who have molested and raped young children. Only a small fraction of people on there don't deserve to be.
Just so you know, this whole time I have not just been talking about consentual sex and statutory rape.
