I think establishing a legal age of consent is necessary, but trying to establish some laws is totally out of this world. Prohibition, for example. Consuming alcohol was against the law? Sodomy is illegal in many states, but how many millions of couples, hetero or otherwise, practice that? Legislators, on the whole, may be intelligent when each is considered individually (many are lawyers; lawyers are generally intelligent), but when taken as a group, they appear to be somewhat stupid. My state is trying to enforce saying the pledge of allegiance in classrooms, and was seriously considering a requirement for married people to undergo a year or more of counseling before a divorce could be granted. Ha! Guess who just separted from his wife? Our namby-pamby governor.

Gee, after reviewing this post, it gives me an idea.

First we find two remote Islands.

We place male pedophiles on one island and the females on another.

Then in 100 years or less, all of them are extinct.

Or maybe we should do genetic alterations to fix the problem.

I sometimes wonder if the current society has read some of Adolph’s speeches. This is where social upheaval is started. 

At first you are attacking the "evil", then over time.......death to all Jews!

To sum up, there is an infinite degree of human sexuality and "perverted if you like" branches from there. How in the world does anyone make a digital determination on the cut off point?

Just because the majority believes something makes it true? I would say let the Church correct the "mob" mentality, but they are the first to be hung.

Definition: Morals - what I have and you don’t (at least that's what I read here and there in these post).

Still say that local agencies are using this as a cash cow to pad the coffers as this crime or even implied crime results in money to them and the local lawyers does it not?

Aldo

Quote:

I agree.

orolan wrote on Sep 14^th, 2003 at 4:27pm:


Generally speaking, when the government has such contradictory public positions on a topic, it generally means there are strong political considerations involved.  Just as the government considers pedophiles both insane and not insane (depending upon what makes a politician look "tough on crime" -- pedophiles, child pornography, etc. are, by definition, easy to kick around for political gain), so the government considers the polygraph both "inaccurate" and "absolutely essential".

Sooner or later, politicians will figure out that actually doing something about security is advantageous politically, at which point the polygraph will be history.  Until then, frauds will continue to hawk their wares and taunt those who call them on it as "disgruntled whiners"...

Skeptic

I am participating in an ongoing discussion on another message board about exactly "what" pedophilia is.
The Federal government, through the Americans with Disabilities Act, says it is a "behaviour problem", thus not eligible for consideration as a "mental illness".
But then that same Federal government as well as many state governments allow "involuntary commitment" of pedophiles because they have an "incurable mental illness" that causes them to molest children.
Then the American Psychiatric Association says pedophilia is not a "mental illness", but is in fact a sexual orientation in some and a behaviour problem in others.
Just thought I'd throw it out for contemplation.

Quote:


Yep.  But at least in western society, acting on one's interest, if one is a pedophile, is unacceptable behavior.

Quote:


Ouch.  I deserved that -- looking back on my comments, I did indeed appear to be supporting a position similar to those of religious right loons who think you can "cure" homosexuality.

Let me make clear that I don't think such a position is viable.  Sexual orientation does, indeed, seem to be one of the more immutable of human characteristics.

However, it is imperative (again, in our society) that those whose sexual orientation involves children not be allowed to act on that orientation.  And I believe it likely many do not: perhaps they're "bisexual" and can enjoy relations with adults as an outlet, or they simply have sufficient willpower to keep themselves from doing something they know would destroy their lives and those of others.

For those who cannot, it's clear that they cannot be allowed continued contact with open society.  Perhaps it's fair and perhaps it's not, but it seems to me that committment and treatment (maybe an alternative outlet can be found for their sexual interests) is a kinder and more Constitutional option than prison.

Skeptic

With respect to this subject, there are shades of gray. Someone whose sexual orientation is geared towards minors, no interest in adults, easily fits into what most people consider a pedophile to be (easiest way to get a nun pregnant is to dress her up as an altar boy). 

Then you have the case of someone who acted out, for whatever reasons (cognitive distortions et al), but whose primary (and only real interest) is in adult consensual contact. A lot of those people, once their head is pulled out their ass, I think, are "cured." I don't think you can cure or fix sexual orientation (think of those church groups that try to "fix" homosexuals - do homosexuals really need fixing?). Regardless, it is easy and convenient for society to use the phrase "sex offender" for both types of people who committed a sexual offense. It's too bad so many people get away with sex related offenses for a couple of reasons (the fact a crime was committed and there is no punishment, the fact one or more victims have to suffer through the consequences of being assaulted).   

When more state legislators, relatives of legislators, friends of legislators, etc. are caught and punished (how are these people different from anyone else - they're just like you and me), then you'll see more attention paid to who is a threat and who is not.

Neo wrote on Sep 12^th, 2003 at 6:07pm:


Neo,
Well said.  Our positions probably aren't as far apart as you might think -- for my part I would prefer to see the more eggregious sex offenders (we're not talking about somebody charged with indecent exposure for urinating around the side of a building after a night of drinking...) treated as insane (criminally or otherwise).  For such people, who (to the best of my knowledge) are incurable, I think permanent inpatient treatment would probably be a good option.

In stating the above, however, I'd like to make clear that I'm not a Ph.D.-level psychologist, nor am I up on the state-of-the-art in treatment.  It might indeed be possible to cure a pedophile who acts on his urges.  But if it is, I haven't heard of it.

Skeptic

Neo,
Good show. Now you're on the right track.
"Sex Offender" is entirely too broad a term, and rules appropriate for one may not be appropriate for the other.

Quote:


I'm not sure the intent of the restrictions are a matter of deterence as much as they are a matter of protection.  With that said, I would loke to clarify my position a little.  I feel I may have inadvertantly taken an extreme position here.

When I use the term "sex offender" I am refering to the actual pedophiles and rapists.  I understand that as a legal term "sex offender" has a much broader meaning; anyone convicted of sexual misconduct or crime.  I personally do not agree with what appears to be the broad definition and use of the term sex offender.  It should only apply to those circumstances which denote the seriousness of the term.

To the others I have been trading posts; My apologies for insinuating your position puts people at risk.  I assume you would not want anyone at risk.  Your argument seems to be the loose interpretation of what a sex offender is and the use of polygraph in regard to that.  I have no beef with that.

Take registration, for example. What proven deterrent effect has that had? Hardly a unanimous decision by SCOTUS about that. Of course it isn't punitive, it's an "administrative" requirement. 

If registration provides such a valuable benefit to society (increasing public safety, allegedly), then why aren't we registering wife beaters/domestic violence offenders and convicted-of-DUI drivers? These classes of offenders pose a serious risk to society. How may thousands of people are injured each year by either type of offender?

Skeptic wrote on Sep 12^th, 2003 at 4:20am:


So once a sex offender has been convicted and sentenced you still think it is excessive and unreasonable to restrict and monitor their movements within society for at least a certain period of time?  Politics aside, it sounds as though the originator of this string irn434's boyfriend had due process.  If he chose to accept a plea or was outright convicted, then he also accepts the sentence.

Lastly, I know the constitution is their for us all, even sex offenders and of course their victims.

Neo wrote on Sep 12^th, 2003 at 3:57am:


Darn those Founding Fathers and their ultra-liberal Bill of Rights.  What a bunch of tree hugging, soft-on-crime wimps.

Skeptic

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
-- Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
-- Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

"No matter what the purpose of the legislation, bad laws that infringe unreasonably on civil liberties are almost always defended with one universal excuse: 'if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about'."
-- Skeptic

orolan wrote on Sep 11^th, 2003 at 11:28pm:


Now your talking!   Or should we take your ultra-liberal point of view and assume that just because "statistically"  they don't re-offend we should err on the side of letting a few get away with it?

Allow me to make a purely emotional argument.  Would you take any risk with your own child based on the sad weeping of a convicted sex offender that he would never do it again or would you prefer restricting his opportunities where he could re-offend?  No doubt it is not perfect and restrictive, but something the average parent appreciates.

Have fun attacking this orolan, but I'm happy you sex offenders out there are restricted.

Quote:

In case you didn't notice, kids are everywhere. The grocery store, the convenience store, the barber shop, WalMart, etc.
Should the sex offender be under "house arrest", allowed to come outside only after giving the PO a detailed minute-by-minute itinerary that is to be followed to the second or risk violation? Might as well have sent him/her to prison.
I see your fundamental problem as being a belief that all sex offenders are looking for new victims. With a like-crime reoffense rate between 2 and 8 percent, that would seem to be a rarity, not the norm.

orolan, 

Consider the multitude of B.S. a P.O. may have to deal with in regard to those sex offenders who are actively trying to find ways to encounter children.  It may seem exteme to you, but I certainly don't mind if a sex offender is "put through the hoops" in order to minimize their opportunities to engage potential victims.  As far as the FISH, who typically frequents pet shops?  Children are among them often enough to consider it a potential hazard.

I realize you are harking on the wrongness of those inappropriately accused and/or convicted.  So consider what irn434 stated.  She indicated her boyfriend, , was rightfully convicted for taking advantage of a mentally limited person.

Neo,
Quote:


Please explain how a probationer needing to seek his/her PO's permission to purchase a fish is protecting anybody.

Quote:


That is exactly why there are sooo many restrictions and conditions.  The pervasive attitude here complaining about the limited personal choices for sex -offenders is what is mind-boggling.  It is the victims and/or potential victims these rules protect.

Quote:


Maybe irn434, but wouldn't you agree the victimization of children or the mentally disabled requires that chance be given with stipulations to ensure the victimizer does not re-offend?

Neo

That is just mind-boggling. I'd rather take the blue pill and make the world go away.

You guys should see the sex offender probation conditions for Wisconsin. All 50 of them. 
The PO must approve any romantic encounter or relationship PRIOR to its occurrence.
The offender can't have a pet without permission, not even a goldfish.
Or buy, sell, rent, borrow or lend an automobile without the PO's permission.
Can't buy or sell a home without permission. Can't rent out a home they own unless the PO interviews and approves the prospective tenants.
Can't go shopping at the mall without permission.
Can't borrow or lend money to or from ANYBODY without permission.
And the list goes on and on.

That's becoming fairly common everywhere, I believe. It used to be you had to disclose ahead of time, tell the therapist, and things were hunky-dorey. Now, it's let's have a come-to-Jesus meeting with all involved. 

For sure, it is getting harder and harder day by day. People in Thelma's situation add to the complexity because everyone has to go through hoops now because of others' past transgressions. One more person "breaking" the rules means life gets harder for those that follow.  Used to be you could drink on special occasions, like your wedding. But noooooo, someone had to go get plastered and get a DUI, so now there are NO exceptions to that anymore, absolutely no drinking whatsoever, at least in my state.

Just be glad you don't live in Washington D.C.
Sex-Offenders there, who are in treatment programs, must bring the person they are considering dating into the program to sign a waiver and have a sit-down conference with the therapist before they can date them.

Dear Thelma,

Let me be the first, if no one else has done it, to welcome you to world of probation. It is like a town with no pity, life's tough in the big city, etc. Your boyfriend has earned his way into the major league with respect to probation. If you want to be a season ticket holder, you need to learn the rules of the game.

First of all, aside from already violating a term of probation (contact with someone who is responsible for minors=you), your relationship already being known to the probation officer means this: if your boyfriend is caught, he will be sanctioned. That's s-a-n-c-t-i-o-n-e-d with a captial F.

This isn't a polygraph matter. This rule is entirely separate from polygraph testing. Being caught in this situation will almost surely mean you and your boyfriend will pay dearly to earn the privilege of him having authorized contact with you. That's pay as in terms of time, money, and consequences.

Secondly, more than likely your boyfriend's treatment agency has a couples group (where you both attend) and upon completing it (8 weeks or so), you will become, or become eligible anyway, an authorized supervisor or chaperone for your boyfriend. You really should look into attending that and having the relationship "approved" and on solid footing (it also is a pretty good marriage counseling type of class). 

The consequences also extend to you: you may never be allowed to be a "containment team" member because of your complicity (seeing him despite knowing he is not allowed to have that kind of contact with you).

Personally, I was able to date whomever whenever. Those were easy rules to follow, and the privilege included spending the night with minors present. This is not a case where it is easier to beg for forgiveness after the fact instead of asking for permission in the first place. Really.

Abiding by these rules helps in the long run. Does it suck at times? You don't want to hear me bitch about that, but the short answer is yes.  It may not feel like it, but there is light at the end of the tunnel, and no, it is not another train.

If my boyfriend is'nt nervous about dating me against the advice of his PO.  If he remains calm, if they ask him are you still dating that woman?  Do you think he has a good chance of passing the pollygraph.
He has'nt broken any laws. So he is ok on that point.  But if they ask him that ? Do you think they might try and bluff him into thinking that he failed that question when he accually passed.  We hav'nt seen each other in a week now,  so he wont be lying.  We are not planning on dating again until after his pollygrph, but we want to be prepared for any contingency.  We just keep wondering if they might try to bluff him into saying we are still seeing each other.  Please answer  Thankyou  Thelma

oh and by the way i keep hearing the term CM's what does that mean?   thanks