Lee
Well-known member
And a plea bargain to keep these people out of jail in return for a "sign in their yard" is good justice? Sounds like a cop-out to me....
Sex Offender Signs Publicly Identify Convicted Predators In Florida
- Thread starter Mike Edge
- Start date
And a plea bargain to keep these people out of jail in return for a "sign in their yard" is good justice? Sounds like a cop-out to me....
Sheldon
Well-known member
Seriously? And I am the one trolling?
I see your point. But I also think that people have the right to know if a sex offender moves into their neighborhood. If they are branded as such with a sign in their front yard like we saw in the OP of this thread, then they have no one but themselves to blame for that. And anyone who is concerned that these sick ****s get discriminated, then they have a screw loose imo.
Lee
Well-known member
Agree again.
But out of the public light, keep the problems out of the neighborhoods.
I think we have similar views, just slightly different outlooks on the end result
Adam Howard
Well-known member
It she understood the legal system, she would have understood the political aspect is indeed a part of it.
We're already there
Police here and else where in the country setup random check points where you're subject to identify yourself and show your documentation.
What is wrong with that?
Lee
Well-known member
Ahhh, see - again I agree with you. In a previous post in this thread I said I believe there should be a form of publicly accessed register. That people can check If they want to.. This takes it out of the immediate attention of drive by (or walk by) opportunists looking for some trouble. Simple solution and to me more appropriate. We just have a different outlook on the end result, again.
Shelley
Well-known member
If you want to protect the SO and feel they should be protected and rewarded then that is certainly your privilege. Did you see what I did there? I manipulated your words as you did with mine.
The funny thing is the majority here during the Lawsuit didn't have an issue in protecting KAM and slating the law and even going on to making such comments as "breaking the law" by stating "burning IB HQ" and posting questionable things about Bob Brisco yet when it comes to matters such as this laws have to be followed. Hypocritical? Oh definitely. Can you see something wrong with this picture? I'll expect the response to that from people to be no since they are the type to turn a blind eye, Remain hypocritical and fight for their own self serving interests.
Talk to me again when there is less hypocrisy around here and people are not picking and choosing.
Lee
Well-known member
I like you more every time you post (in a totally none creepy way!) straight to the point and unafraid to say what is on your mind.
While we might have to agree to disagree on this, I can see (and respect) your views and I understand exactly what you mean about the hypocritical views demonstrated around here sometimes.
Adam Howard
Well-known member
If you have to ask.... Wow
The Fourth Amendment to The United States Constitution states that
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
At a checkpoint, drivers (sometimes even pedestrians) are stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause.
I don''t live in the USA to be familiar with the Constitution there. Anyway, at subject at hand, personally I do not see anything wrong nor do I have a problem if police stops someone and ask to see their papers. I am sure that they have their reasons for doing so and do not do that for the fun of it.
Sador
Well-known member
This is pretty much always a tricky discussion. Note that this is just me writing out my thoughts on the subject, and everything I write is my opinion only.
First of all, I feel that in the choice between warning people versus privacy, warning comes first. If someone was convicted as a child molester, warning potential new victims outranks that persons right on privacy by not having it displayed to the public. In that case, a sign near his house would be just that, a warning to others, not further attacks on him.
Now, the argument was made by someone "but what if he's innocent?" - yes, what if he is? Then he was all ready unfairly convicted and punished. In that case, the same argument can be used about any possible punishment and it would leave the entire system broken. So as far as I'm concerned, this argument doesn't mean much.
Another argument that was made was "but what about other crimes, like murder, rape etc". I agree with that one. You can't single out a single type of crime and not do the others too. This quickly becomes a slippery slope. Will we include murder? If so, how about rape? What if it was just some drunk touching? Or if you tried to kiss someone you really liked, but she didn't like you back? What about piracy? Or riding without a light? And so on.
Do I feel we should put up signs to warn potential new victims about someone? I don't know. Is it fair to forever put on display the worst someone has ever done? Maybe not. Is it fair to the new victims to not display it and leave them clueless? Probably not. In reality, there is no easy solution, no matter what you do (or don't do), there will be advantages, disadvantages and consequences. Neither is perfect. Neither will satisfy everybody. Ultimately, it comes down to preferences, and in discussions like this, all you can hope for is for people to have their opinions and arguments for the right reasons.
First of all, I feel that in the choice between warning people versus privacy, warning comes first. If someone was convicted as a child molester, warning potential new victims outranks that persons right on privacy by not having it displayed to the public. In that case, a sign near his house would be just that, a warning to others, not further attacks on him.
Now, the argument was made by someone "but what if he's innocent?" - yes, what if he is? Then he was all ready unfairly convicted and punished. In that case, the same argument can be used about any possible punishment and it would leave the entire system broken. So as far as I'm concerned, this argument doesn't mean much.
Another argument that was made was "but what about other crimes, like murder, rape etc". I agree with that one. You can't single out a single type of crime and not do the others too. This quickly becomes a slippery slope. Will we include murder? If so, how about rape? What if it was just some drunk touching? Or if you tried to kiss someone you really liked, but she didn't like you back? What about piracy? Or riding without a light? And so on.
Do I feel we should put up signs to warn potential new victims about someone? I don't know. Is it fair to forever put on display the worst someone has ever done? Maybe not. Is it fair to the new victims to not display it and leave them clueless? Probably not. In reality, there is no easy solution, no matter what you do (or don't do), there will be advantages, disadvantages and consequences. Neither is perfect. Neither will satisfy everybody. Ultimately, it comes down to preferences, and in discussions like this, all you can hope for is for people to have their opinions and arguments for the right reasons.
EQnoble
Well-known member
Explain how I am selfish and self serving, or explain how I protect offenders. If you can explain that to a decent degree, if you can prove I do for myself over others I will concede, however I do promise you that you will fail in this attempt.
Just like how I act at this forum I act in face to face life 1:1. The same reason I have something of value to add to this topic, is the same reason I help people with their sites and don't even run one myself, you know ...because I am 'self serving'. (you also realize that I said nothing about property value right?)
Really though, if you read my first post you would understand that a friend of mine is serving almost a decade in jail because his girl at the time couldn't face her racist parents with truth when it was found that she had relations with a black man, people like him are the ones I defend, unless you really believe that she went to his house everyday for almost a year to
Everything is political, you don't think groups of people stroking each other at this site is political...because it damn sure is...political doesn't mean legal government. When one person has a problem with someone and then all of a sudden 10 of their friends have problems with that person...that is political. And for that matter, you don't think the state sanctioning 'Hi I am a rapist' signs on sex offenders lawns is a political action or statement?
Let's suppose this...you have a brother living here in the US, he meets my sister and they have sex. She get's pregnant and looks like a ho-bag because she got pregnant by someone she just met. Instead of facing that decision she says he raped her. Your brother goes to jail for 10 years, when he get's out he has a sign on his lawn reminding him of the lie forced upon him.
My argument supports protecting him....I wouldn't say I'm out of nowhere here... (read the second one...interesting eh?)
http://www.falserape.net/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/13/wanetta-gibson-lawsuit_n_3075566.html
And before anyone says more extreme measures (chemical castration, death penalty etc) need to be taken than signs and jail time, I have to say that if rapists deserve such a bad punishment, people who falsely accuse someone of rape should be executed slowly. They know the ramifications of that charge against someone and use peoples heartstrings to gather support and then attack an innocent person. To me a false accusation is worse than rape in the way that premeditated murder is worse than murdering someone in the heat of the moment. The difference between the two is in each case is very simple, when you have a plan and execute premeditated murder or a false accusation of rape to benefit yourself, you a dangerous criminal who will repeat actions until caught.
Shelley
Well-known member
Again, twisting words.
What I have realised which is consistent in this thread that quite a few people know people falsely accused of rape. Can you remember the lawsuit? Suddenly everyone became a wannabe lawyer. And to put things in perspective anyone falsely accusing anyone of rape and found to be falsely accusing them should be having a sign outside their homes branded as such "I falsely accused blah blah" they are just as bad as the abusers, no exceptions.
What if's are not facts with regards to your last sentence. I'd put it down that the sister was a dirty whore and needs dumping in the ocean or at the very least put down like a dog.I'd hit a what if back at you but for the subject at hand I'll retrain myself from doing so.
Edrondol
Well-known member
I'm going under the assumption that these individuals are 100% guilty and that the victims are indeed victims of terrible, terrible crimes.
I'm still against this if the individuals are already done paying their debt to society. It is my view that if said debt has been paid, then that person is as free as is allowed. If it was a felony there are restrictions already set in place, such as voting in some places and gun ownership. If the crime was not labeled a felony (highly doubtful in this in stance) then that person is as free as you or I.
If you don't like this, then you need to work on getting the punishment phase changed. It would be like telling you you have a fine to pay and then after you've paid it off they tell you that you owe more just because. You know of empirical instances where the current laws didn't work? I agree. Sometimes these things slip through the cracks. But there are also instances where people really are rehabilitated. What about these people? You have to remember that prison and our justice system is SUPPOSED to be about rehabilitation, not revenge.
I know how you are going to read this - that I feel for the criminal and not the victim - but to me in this case both are actually immaterial. It's not about whether the signs in question are the right thing to do. I say they are not because it's a form of double-jeopardy, which is unconstitutional.
I'm still against this if the individuals are already done paying their debt to society. It is my view that if said debt has been paid, then that person is as free as is allowed. If it was a felony there are restrictions already set in place, such as voting in some places and gun ownership. If the crime was not labeled a felony (highly doubtful in this in stance) then that person is as free as you or I.
If you don't like this, then you need to work on getting the punishment phase changed. It would be like telling you you have a fine to pay and then after you've paid it off they tell you that you owe more just because. You know of empirical instances where the current laws didn't work? I agree. Sometimes these things slip through the cracks. But there are also instances where people really are rehabilitated. What about these people? You have to remember that prison and our justice system is SUPPOSED to be about rehabilitation, not revenge.
I know how you are going to read this - that I feel for the criminal and not the victim - but to me in this case both are actually immaterial. It's not about whether the signs in question are the right thing to do. I say they are not because it's a form of double-jeopardy, which is unconstitutional.
EQnoble
Well-known member
Explain how that is a wannabe lawyer....
I do know someone who is in jail for something he didn't do...this is not fairy tale land, and there will never be a happy ending for him...this is a dude sitting in a jumpsuit in a room about the size of your closet for a decade or about 1/7 th of his life because of a false accusation.
Now if you were to put a sign on his lawn stating he was a rapist when he DOES get out of jail, it WILL for a FACT do a few things.
People will bring race issues up...and start violent acts based on that, it will start with a brick through someones window but it wont end there.
People will see that sign and it will trigger thoughts of what kind of monster is behind that door. Eventually they will act...this will also be violent.
And lets not forget about my friend who would have just gotten out of jail, do you think after 10 years surviving in the box with dudes who WILL stab you over ramen noodles that he has lost nothing...perhaps some innocence?
Do you really think when someone gets in his face calling him N* this or rapist that those 10 years of surviving in jail aren't going to make him defend himself and do you think that if you spent a decade in jail you would take kindly to someone rubbing your false imprisonment in your face .
I don't think so and in the case I explained, you now have an innocent man who is acting like a criminal because he is rightfully defending his honor or whats left of what has been stripped from him.
This is not what if...this is a real situation involving people that I used to chop-em down with. I described something that exists in my life and that situation WOULD be drastically changed for the worse if you included these signs. Maybe where you are rape is nothing and treated lightly...but over here every girl knows that if they cry rape people will come running to their rescue.
And in the end if she was a dirty whore that wouldn't matter because she wont be jailed for that and your brother will be picking up soap for his new room-mates because all people heard was rape.
Nobody runs to a grown mans rescue when he is falsely accused, every person is so stuck on the word rape that they can't see past the fact that he might not be guilty and then it is like people only say bad stuff about the guy or say nothing at all...because of some forced sociably acceptable views on the topic.
I knew a girl that used to act sweet and take things from men..if they didn't buy the sweet act and said 'nah girl, I need that back' she would say something like 'It's mine or I scream one word loudly and that word is rape', and guys would basically be chumped and robbed by a girl and she only had to say one key word.
Here is an interesting situation, not related to rape...though if you flip the situation around and it was a guy attacking a girl i'm sure everyone would think he was going to rape her...but when she attacks him..99% of people just sit there and say nothing and let it happen.
In the end any thing you can prosecute for....needs to have a harsher penalty for falsely accusing of, otherwise just like that court case you mentioned, one side will always pervert the law in order to legally attack someone, just like in that case and just like in the case where my friend went to jail.