California Prop 83 passed

[Wulfgar]

What a fucking crock of shit. A fucking waste of taxpayer money to do absolutely NOTHING to stop ANY sex crime from happening. Literally this was a proposition only a pandering politician could love and cause it was "for the children" it passed by a landslide. A couple hundred million dollars a year to strap leashes onto peoples asses, 95% of which have NEVER had a repeat offense and have lived a quiet, upstanding life since they were convicted.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This proposition is going to ruin families, it will make parents not be able to take thier kids to the park, goto school functions. It will drive the REAL criminals underground or into areas where it is harder to monitor them.
It is a sad day in California with this regressive bullshit proposition passing. What a terrible lose/lose, fear based, propoganda ridden fuckin society and state I live in.
Im selling my fuckin house here and living permanently in my place in Hawaii.

 

[jnevin]

So, anyone that has ever had a sexual offense would be monitored by GPS and wouldn't be allowed near parks or schools?

 

[p0ink]

wulfgar, are you a registered sex offender? if not, i don't know why you would be against this.

this proposition bans sex offenders living anywhere in the immediate vicinity of a school, park, playground, etc....which is pretty much EVERYWHERE.

since the democrats won't let us kill or even jail (in most cases) sex offenders, since they make up a large percentage of their base, we need to do something to inconvenience their lives as much as possible.

this law is fucking awesome.

 

[p0ink]

This proposition is going to ruin families, it will make parents not be able to take thier kids to the park, goto school functions.

oh, it's going to upset the father who has turned both his kids into his own personal pin cushion? boo-fucking-hoo.

you are either out of your mind, or you have been convicted of some sort of sex crime.

 

[patsfan1379]

This proposition is the best piece of legislation to pass in years.

 

[CO B-man]

I hope you are not a sex offender. That would be the only reason I could see someone getting this upset over this! You were not on Datelines to catch a predator were you? lol! j/k

 

[p0ink]

wulfgar, you might want to try teenbodybuilding.com instead of EF. you might have better luck there.

 

[jnevin]

wulfgar, you might want to try teenbodybuilding.com instead of EF. you might have better luck there.

Please tell me that isn't really a site.

 

[p0ink]

Please tell me that isn't really a site.

yeah, it's associated with bodybuilding.com

wulfgar likes the pictures.

 

[jnevin]

Wulfgar, please help me understand why this is such a bad law? I really want to know.

 

[alien amp pharm]

Isn't statutory rape even of the willing considered a sex crime?

That is what I have a problem with.

 

[UA_Iron]

Why would he have to be a sex offender to observe that a law is unfair and unrealistic?

We really need more laws? You are marked for life if you're a sex offender, shit just got worse.

I cringe at every DUI law that passes cause I know I will be involved somehow (people I know getting popped - I dont drink and drive).

 

[Wulfgar]

you guys
no need to bash me.
Bash this CRAP piece of legislation
And no, I am not a sex offender.
The negatives of this are extremely far reaching.
1: This legislation will be ineffective for preventing repeat offenders(of which the 85,000 registered sex offenders in california only 3% are repeat). The GPS tracking system is NOT a 24 hour surveillance system. AT BEST it COULD help to find an offender AFTER THE CRIME. Maybe, or it would incarcerate an innocent man or woman who happens to live locally to where the crime took place. The crime will still happen, period.
2: The law ruins families. Hey, Im all for a legislation that will keep true predators off the street. But the simple fact is. This expensive program wont do it. the VAST majority of who will be affected by this are one time offenders who have NEVER repeated. These poor folks have new lives, families, jobs...ect and many have had them for 10,20, even 30 years with no repeat offense. These families will be torn apart, the person will not be able to go to thier kids school functions, will not be able to take thier kids to the park. Familes unable to move financially will be evicted from thier homes and forced to relocate. It is a backwards reggressive program that supports sepration and alienation rather than healing and therapy for these folks.
3: The 2000 foot thing is the stupidest thing Ive ever heard of. A TRUE offender WILL find a way to drive his car, ride a bike, fucking walk an extra .5 mile to a school to stalk. This law again just promotes more separation and angst for families by forcing them into selling thier homes in a down market. And for what reason??? none, it is foolish and not @ all useful to preventing any crimes whatsoever.
4: The COST to the taxpayers is overwhelming for a system that will do little, if anything, to prevent sex crimes. " a couple HUNDRED MILLION a year"?????!?!?!?!? wtf? Wouldnt this money be better spent on education and school programs (since this IS all about saving the kiddies right )

It is a foolish foolish thing to do. Society is worse off than I thought when this thing passed with such a landslide vote. Watch what harm this bill does as it rips away rights and incarcerates those who havent done anything wrong. Plus driving true offenders into more loosely populated areas will police will have a more difficult time with dealing with them.

 

[Wulfgar]

Also,
yes, people convicted of statuatory rape are included in this. So someone who had a 17 y/o gf when they were 19 and the girls mommy and daddy got pissed and charged him with the "crime" is now fucked for life. EVEN IF it happened 30 years ago.

and the penaties for sex offenders are tough enough. This was completely unecessary.


oh, and one more thing. this is copy pasted from a anti prop 83 site...this type of law has been tried before and was met with horrible results

Proposition 83 would have other dangerous, unintended consequences. The Proposition’s monitoring provisions would be least effective against those posing the greatest danger. Obviously, dangerous offenders would be the least likely to comply, so the proposed law would push the more serious offenders underground, where they would be less effectively monitored by police. In addition, by prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school, the initiative would force many offenders from urban to rural areas with smaller police forces. A high concentration of sex offenders in rural neighborhoods will not serve public safety.

Prosecutors in the State of Iowa know from sad experience that this type of residency restriction does not work. In 2001, Iowa adopted a similar law, but the association of county prosecutors that once advocated for that law now say that it “does not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of enforcing the requirement and unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction with more effective protective measures.” (February 14, 2006, “Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa,” Iowa County Attorneys Association.) (To see the full Statement, go to: www.iowa-icaa.com/index.htm or www.cacj.org.)

A summary of the Iowa prosecutors’ findings shows why the Iowa law was a disaster and why Proposition 83 must be rejected:

* Residency restrictions do not reduce sex offenses against children or improve children’s safety.

* Residency restrictions will not be effective against 80 to 90% of sex crimes against children, because those crimes are committed by a relative or acquaintance of the child.

* Residency restrictions cause sex registrants to disappear from the registration system, harming the interest of public safety.

* Enforcing the residency restrictions is expensive and ineffective.

* The law also caused unwarranted disruption to the innocent families of ex-offenders.

 

[silverbackn]

It's hard to draw the line and say what is too restrictive. If it makes it hard to integrate someone back into society then I think it is fucked up. Should somoene be punished forever if they aren't a repeat offender? I don't think they should. I think child predators are the sickest motherfuckers alive but scare tactics and propaganda aren't going to fix the problem. The problem will never be fixed. Here's what you guys aren't seeing, CRIMINALS DON"T FOLLOW LAWS THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM CRIMINALS.

 

[CO B-man]

Wulfgar,
I see your point. That makes sense and is fucked up.

All I know is that I wished I had Debra Lefave as my school teacher when I was a kid in school! She was/is super hot. That kid is probably the stud of his school now!

 

[Wulfgar]

exactly
this supposed "logic" is like saying " Since you have had 1 DUI, we are forever banning you from being able to drive, or living withing 2000 feet of a car dealership or a parking lot, oh and here, wear this GPS thing on your body for the rest of your life so everyone that sees you knows u have somehow broken the law"

 

[Wulfgar]

Wulfgar,
I see your point. That makes sense and is fucked up.

All I know is that I wished I had Debra Lefave as my school teacher when I was a kid in school! She was/is super hot. That kid is probably the stud of his school now!

ya I know bro. And that poor woman, under this law, would be demonized for the rest of her life. These people have DONE thier time. It should be over and done with. It is unconstitutional to punsih those who havent done anything and have already done thier required sentances.
besides, who here thinks Debra Lafave is a criminal? Or that she "forcibly raped" this kid?? its BS. Completel BS

 

[UA_Iron]

ya I know bro. And that poor woman, under this law, would be demonized for the rest of her life. These people have DONE thier time. It should be over and done with. It is unconstitutional to punsih those who havent done anything and have already done thier required sentances.
besides, who here thinks Debra Lafave is a criminal? Or that she "forcibly raped" this kid?? its BS. Completel BS

the punishment that keeps on punishing

 

[Wulfgar]

the punishment that keeps on punishing

seriously
how long until every every ex-criminal or misdeameanor offender is thrown into this "surveillance" system? or different demographic of people "likely to commit a crime".
fuck, one day if this shit continues we are all gonna have government leashes up our asses.
talk about Big Brother

 

[Y_lifter]

If you can't do the time
Don't do the crime..


I would like to hear your alternative suggestions for dealing with people that comit certain crimes that have been shown over and over again as being rarely if ever rehabilitated.

Maybe a Second strike and you are out provision, vs the once ?

 

[p0ink]

the punishment that keeps on punishing

these people molested kids. even if it just happened once (which is rarely the case), they still did irreparable harm to that child, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

they should be thankful they are living in a society where they only have a few restrictions on them, rather than a society that would hang or stone them (which is what they deserve).

and the argument that they won't register is a crock of shit. ok, if they don't register, as they are required by law to do, send them back to jail. problem solved.

wulfgar, why you are being so sympathetic towards the bottom rung of humanity is beyond me.

 

[Lestat]

i voted against it

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

If you can't do the time
Don't do the crime..


I would like to hear your alternative suggestions for dealing with people that comit certain crimes that have been shown over and over again as being rarely if ever rehabilitated.

Maybe a Second strike and you are out provision, vs the once ?

This is the what I've read more often than not too. Unless it's just more agenda pushing half truth bs. Boy politicians sure like to waste money though. The second chance idea with much stricter punishment makes much more logical/economical sense.

 

[p0ink]

for you guys so concerned about state spending, why arent you bitching about all of the illegal immigrants you people are paying for. i assure you, it's a whole hell of a lot more than what this child molester program is going to cost.

 

[Lestat]

for you guys so concerned about state spending, why arent you bitching about all of the illegal immigrants you people are paying for. i assure you, it's a whole hell of a lot more than what this child molester program is going to cost.

id vote against installing GPS devices on illegals too

 

[Y_lifter]

Career criminals being allowed to live their life via the revolving door prison system pisses me off. At what point do you say that someone has refused treatment or rehab and is a detriment to society, and so should be excluded from it ?

 

[jnevin]

for you guys so concerned about state spending, why arent you bitching about all of the illegal immigrants you people are paying for. i assure you, it's a whole hell of a lot more than what this child molester program is going to cost.

I think what people are more concerned with is, is how many people this will affect, not only child molesters. From what I'm getting, this is to any and all people that have ever been charged with a sex crime. I agree with you 100% about the child molesters, but this will affect people that have been rehabilitated and have been law abiding members of society since their release from prison. I think it could be an ok idea for repeat offenders, or if the crimes were violent, but for someone to be black listed for life like this because of a mistake is pretty over the top.

 

[p0ink]

id vote against installing GPS devices on illegals too

criminals forfeit their rights to privacy when they are breaking the law or have committed serious crimes against it.

sorry.

 

[Lestat]

criminals forfeit their rights to privacy when they are breaking the law or have committed serious crimes against it.

sorry.

Ok, so some guy, lets say a 19 year old, is at a ballgame, a concert, somewhere, and he's drunk maybe, high, who knows.

He touches a woman inapprpriately. Her breasts lets say, over the clothes, briefly. She calls security, presses charges, he pleads no contest and now for the rest of his life is on the sex offendar registry, can't live near parks or schools, etc. Oh and we'll pay for him to wear a GPS device toO!

 

[jnevin]

Ok, so some guy, lets say a 19 year old, is at a ballgame, a concert, somewhere, and he's drunk maybe, high, who knows.

He touches a woman inapprpriately. Her breasts lets say, over the clothes, briefly. She calls security, presses charges, he pleads no contest and now for the rest of his life is on the sex offendar registry, can't live near parks or schools, etc. Oh and we'll pay for him to wear a GPS device toO!

That's how I feel about something like this. Violent or repeat offenders should have different shit to deal with that some dumb drunk frat boy that grabbed an ass when he shouldn't have.

 

[p0ink]

I think what people are more concerned with is, is how many people this will affect, not only child molesters. From what I'm getting, this is to any and all people that have ever been charged with a sex crime. I agree with you 100% about the child molesters, but this will affect people that have been rehabilitated and have been law abiding members of society since their release from prison. I think it could be an ok idea for repeat offenders, or if the crimes were violent, but for someone to be black listed for life like this because of a mistake is pretty over the top.

once again, they shouldn't just be able to be 'rehabilitated' and be done with it? what about the people who are damaged for life by the actions of this now 'law-abiding citizen'?

spare me.

if their life becomes to hard and and unmanagble to bear because of this law, i hope they do the right thing and kill themselves.

one less child molester, one less burden to the tax-payers, etc.

 

[CO B-man]

id vote against installing GPS devices on illegals too

Yeah just shoot them! Nobody knows the are here anyway!

 

[jnevin]

once again, they shouldn't just be able to be 'rehabilitated' and be done with it? what about the people who are damaged for life by the actions of this now 'law-abiding citizen'?

spare me.

if their life becomes to hard and and unmanagble to bear because of this law, i hope they do the right thing and kill themselves.

one less child molester, one less burden to the tax-payers, etc.

Again, the law doesn't only apply to child molesters. Every crime affects people, that's why they're crimes. I don't think rapists and child molesters should be let out of prison, I think they should have the same sentence as murder. This law goes way beyond that though.

 

[p0ink]

Ok, so some guy, lets say a 19 year old, is at a ballgame, a concert, somewhere, and he's drunk maybe, high, who knows.

He touches a woman inapprpriately. Her breasts lets say, over the clothes, briefly. She calls security, presses charges, he pleads no contest and now for the rest of his life is on the sex offendar registry, can't live near parks or schools, etc. Oh and we'll pay for him to wear a GPS device toO!

9 times out of 10 this will come nowhere near being convicted of sex crime.

and you guys will be paying for all of arnold's, de niro's, and every other rich hollywood celeb's medications after they hit 65. that will cost more than this program.

the bi-lingual services your state offers for pretty much every public service assuredly costs more than this program.

where's the outrage?

fuck these people. they deserve whatever happens to them.

 

[p0ink]

Again, the law doesn't only apply to child molesters. Every crime affects people, that's why they're crimes. I don't think rapists and child molesters should be let out of prison, I think they should have the same sentence as murder. This law goes way beyond that though.

it takes a lot to be convicted of a sex crime. it's not like getting a speeding ticket.

again, i am fresh out of give a fuck for these people.

 

[ksharp01]

Isn't statutory rape even of the willing considered a sex crime?

That is what I have a problem with.

Yes here it is anyway. I personally know of someone that is on that list of sex offenders. He was dating a girl which at the time he was only like 3 years older but he pissed off the mom and she had him arrested. That was BS!! He will always be on that list. I used to think it was just those that prayed on really young kids.

 

[p0ink]

Yes here it is anyway. I personally know of someone that is on that list of sex offenders. He was dating a girl which at the time he was only like 3 years older but he pissed off the mom and she had him arrested. That was BS!! He will always be on that list. I used to think it was just those that prayed on really young kids.

ok, did he not know the risks of fucking a minor before he was cuffed or did it just come as a surprise?

they are called jail-bait for a reason.

if you guys are so worried about this sort of shit happening, start working towards lowering the age of consent in your state.

 

[Razorguns]

on a list of people i feel sorry for:

sex offenders are way down that list.

Sorry if i don't give a shit about their whining. Yawn.

 

[Lestat]

it takes a lot to be convicted of a sex crime. it's not like getting a speeding ticket.

again, i am fresh out of give a fuck for these people.

its not that difficult man.

remember when Marylin manson gyrated his head on a security guard at a concert? That was such a big deal because if convicted he's be registered as a sex offender.

EVEN AN ATTEMPT gets you on that.= ATTEMPTED! So chatting it up dirty style to a minor on the internet can earn you that distinction.

 

[Wulfgar]

This law is like using a broad sword in an operation where a scalpel is needed.
It punishes everyone for something targeted towards the vast minority.
I dont know where some of you guys are getting your statistics. But it has been proven time and time again that repeat and violent sex crime offenders(not to mention the even smaller percentage that have commited a sex crime vs. a child) constitue only 3-5% of the 85,000+ registered offenders in the state.
THIS is the reason this legislation is horrible.
And please dont think that I am somehow condoning sex crimes with my position because nothing is further from the truth. But I do believe that the low recidivism rate proves that this law is punsihing 75,000+ people who have never commited a crime past what they have ALREADY done thier time for.
This is unjust in every way, unconstitutional in EVERY way. There will be lawsuits and problems pending from this ridiculous piece of legislature until it is changed.

and it really does not take much to be convicted of a sex crime. All it takes is circumstancial evidence to be charged and/or a good prosecutor.

also my stance on it is this...these people DID thier time. They should not be forced to deal with a new law that they are @ the effect of 20+ years after the crime was commited!!! That is INSANITY!! I beleive the system is harsh enough on sex offenders. I also believe therapy and rehabilitation works. and there is a 95-97% sucess rate to prove it.

The cost is just ridiculous in all ways. And about the argument on illegal immigrants???
you have to be kidding me. The mexicans are an INTEGRAL part of our labor force. Who else is going to do the housekeeping, landscaping, concrete labor, furniture moving, demolition, and hundreds of other tasks we dont have to want to do?? No one, we rely on these people and to spend money to keep them out is a crime in itself. We should spend the $$ to bring them in and register them 100X faster than we are now. America was founded by immigrant workers, and now we are trying to kick them out? Again, insanity.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

How ironic that this law could've been applied to Cali's own governor way back when! Maybe it still will be!
While we're at it we'd better got ahead and indict Clinton again.

What a mess this law is. Way to attack the problem at its source, politicians! And voters!

 

[Lestat]

i don't know where p0ink gets the idea that its tough to be convicted of a sex crime, its a lot easier than you would think. Things that some people do on a DAY TO DAY basis would be grounds for conviction and enrollment in the sex offender registry. All it takes is someone to push hard enough and you get a judge who agrees with them and you are royally fucked.

I've definitely done things that could have been taken as sex crimes, luckily for me I've never had any (serious) complaints.

 

[Lao Tzu]

These laws are incredibly stupid. Seeing how most child molestors are never even caught, let alone convicted, all you are doing it pretending that you are doing something about this problem.

That is why I oppose these laws. Not only are they excessive (nobody wants to stand up for sex offenders, so they are easy targets), but they do nothing. The 98% of pedophiles who are and have never been caught are not affected by these laws in thes lightest. These stupid laws are just designed to make the Dr. Phil watching Soccer mom crowd deluded into thinking their kids are safe.

This is like a law designed fight gang violence by targeting 2% of gang members who have for the most part reformed. Nevermind the 98% who exist freely in society, lets go after the 2% who for the most part have left gangs are are not breaking the law anymore. By doing so then the O'Reillys of the world can pretend they are actually doing something about the problem and start ignoring it.

Do you really want to stop pedophilia? Make it public. Public service announcements, put it into TV plots, show happy TV families where the father turns out to be a pedophile. Make pedophilia a legitimate mental illness, give people anonymous methods of treatment for it, put money into research for treatment and give people anonoymous ways to communicate about them being pedophiles or being the victims of pedophiles, even if this communication does not lead to arrest (many victims do not want their attacker arrested since they are likely a family member or family friend). Doing this might actually do something constructive. However doing that isn't bloodthirsty, and it shatters made up delusions about pedophiles. So we aren't doing that. Instead we are targeting the 2% pedophiles with a low risk rate because we are too cowardly and ignorant as a nation to stand up and do what actually works.

 

[Wulfgar]

^^^^^ Amen
we need more smart people like u

 

[javaguru]

If you can't do the time
Don't do the crime..


I would like to hear your alternative suggestions for dealing with people that comit certain crimes that have been shown over and over again as being rarely if ever rehabilitated.

Maybe a Second strike and you are out provision, vs the once ?

That's pretty much everyone who commits a crime, including people who speed, if you speed once you'll probably do it again. Damn speeders, responsible for 30% of all accident fatalities!

I see wulfgar's point with the law, it doesn't differentiate from a first time offender and a "predator." A guy I know banged a girl he met at a bar, 18 and over bar, he was 26...turns out she was 17 and he was prosecuted. He plead to a lesser charge, which fortunately for him, didn't classify him as a sex offender. However, he wasn't allowed to join the army because he had a misdemeanor that involved a minor......

 

[manny78]

Obviously California has lots of money to spend on retarted stuff lol

 

[radarstoy]

I am shocked it passed. I voted no for many of the same reasons. But I have faith in the California system that it will never be enacted. Look at Prop 187 from years gone by. Still fuming about that one. Castration and maiming will yield better results and less money spent.

I disagree with your thoughts on immigration. They are a drain on our school systems, jobs, insurance preminums and the list goes on... Get rid of the illegals and put all our wonderful welfare recipents to work. I am sick and tired of paying for someone elses free ride!

Peace

 

[Wulfgar]

I am shocked it passed. I voted no for many of the same reasons. But I have faith in the California system that it will never be enacted. Look at Prop 187 from years gone by. Still fuming about that one. Castration and maiming will yield better results and less money spent.

I disagree with your thoughts on immigration. They are a drain on our school systems, jobs, insurance preminums and the list goes on... Get rid of the illegals and put all our wonderful welfare recipents to work. I am sick and tired of paying for someone elses free ride!

Peace

On immigration
I dont think we should just allow them to come in free of the system. I am vehemenantly agaisnt that in fact. I believe our system is horrifically outdatted and ineffectual in registering people as american citizens. I want a complete immigration reform where the mexicans come over as LEGAL citizens who have to pay taxes and register and have rights like any of us do. I do NOT support Illegal Immigration.

 

[radarstoy]

On immigration
I dont think we should just allow them to come in free of the system. I am vehemenantly agaisnt that in fact. I believe our system is horrifically outdatted and ineffectual in registering people as american citizens. I want a complete immigration reform where the mexicans come over as LEGAL citizens who have to pay taxes and register and have rights like any of us do. I do NOT support Illegal Immigration.

Glad to hear that

Peace

 

[patsfan1379]

This law is like using a broad sword in an operation where a scalpel is needed.
It punishes everyone for something targeted towards the vast minority.
I dont know where some of you guys are getting your statistics. But it has been proven time and time again that repeat and violent sex crime offenders(not to mention the even smaller percentage that have commited a sex crime vs. a child) constitue only 3-5% of the 85,000+ registered offenders in the state.
THIS is the reason this legislation is horrible.
And please dont think that I am somehow condoning sex crimes with my position because nothing is further from the truth. But I do believe that the low recidivism rate proves that this law is punsihing 75,000+ people who have never commited a crime past what they have ALREADY done thier time for.
This is unjust in every way, unconstitutional in EVERY way. There will be lawsuits and problems pending from this ridiculous piece of legislature until it is changed.

and it really does not take much to be convicted of a sex crime. All it takes is circumstancial evidence to be charged and/or a good prosecutor.

also my stance on it is this...these people DID thier time. They should not be forced to deal with a new law that they are @ the effect of 20+ years after the crime was commited!!! That is INSANITY!! I beleive the system is harsh enough on sex offenders. I also believe therapy and rehabilitation works. and there is a 95-97% sucess rate to prove it.

The cost is just ridiculous in all ways. And about the argument on illegal immigrants???
you have to be kidding me. The mexicans are an INTEGRAL part of our labor force. Who else is going to do the housekeeping, landscaping, concrete labor, furniture moving, demolition, and hundreds of other tasks we dont have to want to do?? No one, we rely on these people and to spend money to keep them out is a crime in itself. We should spend the $$ to bring them in and register them 100X faster than we are now. America was founded by immigrant workers, and now we are trying to kick them out? Again, insanity.

I'm going to be 100% honest here.

If you get convicted of a sex crime against children you're life should be ruined forever. I don't care if you did it 20 years ago.

That child pays for what they did every day of their life.

Maybe consequences like this will make pervs think twice.

 

[Wulfgar]

I'm going to be 100% honest here.

If you get convicted of a sex crime against children you're life should be ruined forever. I don't care if you did it 20 years ago.

That child pays for what they did every day of their life.

Maybe consequences like this will make pervs think twice.

Again, Im not condoning sex crimes vs. children. I am saying this law is punishing EVERYONE in order to affect a very very small percentage of the true predators. This is not just about child molesters. This is the problem, people are having this weird emotional reaction thinking this legislation is ONLY for child sex offenders, IT IS NOT!!! plus, it is affecting people who were not even convicted under the current laws!!!
That would be like being arrested for possessing alchohol because we used to have prohibition. It is wrong and unconstitutional
thank god the ACLU s already appealing this bogus crap. This opens up too many major doors for the government to take away even more of our civil liberties

 

[patsfan1379]

Again, Im not condoning sex crimes vs. children. I am saying this law is punishing EVERYONE in order to affect a very very small percentage of the true predators. This is not just about child molesters. This is the problem, people are having this weird emotional reaction thinking this legislation is ONLY for child sex offenders, IT IS NOT!!! plus, it is affecting people who were not even convicted under the current laws!!!
That would be like being arrested for possessing alchohol because we used to have prohibition. It is wrong and unconstitutional
thank god the ACLU s already appealing this bogus crap. This opens up too many major doors for the government to take away even more of our civil liberties

I don't care if it ruins their families, I don't care if it is retroactive and I don't care if they've "already paid" for their crimes.

Good legislation.

They are called consequences.

 

[slat1]

It seems to me at best the law is just another "deterant".
But why spend so much on one?
I would rather we tatoo the persons forehead. Its cheaper and more obvious.

 

[Wulfgar]

I don't care if it ruins their families, I don't care if it is retroactive and I don't care if they've "already paid" for their crimes.

Good legislation.

They are called consequences.

that is unfortunate that so many of the population have such a short-sighted, narrow-minded view of what will advance our society and progress us into a more enlightened and progressive civilization. When in truth it is legislation like this that cripples society and regresses us into a lose/lose situation.

Nobody wins with this legislation in effect. Nobody.

 

[Wulfgar]

It seems to me at best the law is just another "deterant".
But why spend so much on one?
I would rather we tatoo the persons forehead. Its cheaper and more obvious.

the problem is is that it is not a deterrant for all those people already registered that it is affecting. These people did nothing wrong and were not convicted when this law was in effect.
It is unconstitutional and unjust to sentence people and punish them further without due process.

 

[patsfan1379]

that is unfortunate that so many of the population have such a short-sighted, narrow-minded view of what will advance our society and progress us into a more enlightened and progressive civilization. When in truth it is legislation like this that cripples society and regresses us into a lose/lose situation.

Nobody wins with this legislation in effect. Nobody.

I'd install the death penalty for people convicted of sex crimes against children.

How's that for progressive.

 

[slat1]

the problem is is that it is not a deterrant for all those people already registered that it is affecting. These people did nothing wrong and were not convicted when this law was in effect.
It is unconstitutional and unjust to sentence people and punish them further without due process.

I hear you. I was saying that the other law was at best a deterrant.
That being the case my above scenario would be cheaper if it is a deterrant they want.

 

[jnevin]

I'd install the death penalty for people convicted of sex crimes against children.

How's that for progressive.

I'd go life sentence for that and rape. No question.

 

[Lao Tzu]

I'm going to be 100% honest here.

If you get convicted of a sex crime against children you're life should be ruined forever. I don't care if you did it 20 years ago.

That child pays for what they did every day of their life.

Maybe consequences like this will make pervs think twice.

Problem is child molestation is a delicate issue. If you take some 6 year old who is being molested by their father or some other family member and tell them point blank they have two options

1. Tell someone and watch their family get ripped to shreds by bloodthirsty law enforcement officials
2. Ignore it and pretend it isn't happening

Which do you think the kids are going to pick 95% of the time? We need a totally new way to deal with sex crimes in our society, because our current method is a total and utter failure. All our current method does is excessively penalize the 2-5% who get caught.

 

[patsfan1379]

Problem is child molestation is a delicate issue. If you take some 6 year old who is being molested by their father or some other family member and tell them point blank they have two options

1. Tell someone and watch their family get ripped to shreds by bloodthirsty law enforcement officials
2. Ignore it and pretend it isn't happening

Which do you think the kids are going to pick 95% of the time? We need a totally new way to deal with sex crimes in our society, because our current method is a total and utter failure. All our current method does is excessively penalize the 2-5% who get caught.

Sex-Crime against child = death penalty.

What is easier than that?

 

[Lao Tzu]

Sex-Crime against child = death penalty.

What is easier than that?

A method with a success rate higher than 5%.

What about the endless millions of kids being molested who refuse to come forward? Telling them that their only options are either watch life as they know it end or ignore it only drives the problem underground. I have met many victims of molestation who wouldn't come forward because they were close to their abuser and didnt' want harm to come to them. We need something that actually works to deal with this problem, because it is massive and all we have now are cowboy solutions that don't work but sound nice.

 

[patsfan1379]

A method with a success rate higher than 5%.

What about the endless millions of kids being molested who refuse to come forward? Telling them that their only options are either watch life as they know it end or ignore it only drives the problem underground. I have met many victims of molestation who wouldn't come forward because they were close to their abuser and didnt' want harm to come to them. We need something that actually works to deal with this problem, because it is massive and all we have now are cowboy solutions that don't work but sound nice.

I'm not good at logical educated discourse. I'm more of a knee-jerk gut feeling type of guy.

 

[Wulfgar]

I beleive pedophilia needs to stop being looked @ only as a horrific crime but as a psychological disorder. At the moment if a pedophile was to goto a psychologist and admit he/she was having these feelings or in fact commiting a sex crime the psychologist is bound by law to turn them in to law enforcement officials. To me, this is insanity and a ridiculous way to deal with the problem. So in effect all it does is keep the pedophiles underground and unable to go anywhere for therapy.
What this legislature would have spent our hundreds of millions on to actually progress socety and truly help with this problem would be to create anonymous groups for pedophiles and victims to goto to get counseling and help. Also to pay for broadcasts and shows to bring the fact it IS a psychological disorder and to stop demonizing people for being sick and having an addiction.
As hard as this is to stomach for people this is truly the only way I see any meaningful method to actually help and not just create a diversion so people can continue to be sheep and turn a blind eye to this problem.

 

[Gambino]

lol
only california peeps bitch about rights for sex offenders and other waste
i don't get it

 

[patsfan1379]

lol
only california peeps bitch about rights for sex offenders and other waste
i don't get it

true dat

 

[Gambino]

true dat

notice the people who agree with wulfgar are largely cali progressives

 

[WODIN]

wulfgar, are you a registered sex offender? if not, i don't know why you would be against this.

this proposition bans sex offenders living anywhere in the immediate vicinity of a school, park, playground, etc....which is pretty much EVERYWHERE.

since the democrats won't let us kill or even jail (in most cases) sex offenders, since they make up a large percentage of their base, we need to do something to inconvenience their lives as much as possible.

this law is fucking awesome.

I agree that this law is awesome but you are mistaken in your thinking of our base. Mark Foley is a Republican....

 

[Gambino]

I agree that this law is awesome but you are mistaken in your thinking of our base. Mark Foley is a Republican....

and who did mark foley have sex with?
hmmm??

 

[javaguru]

notice the people who agree with wulfgar are largely cali progressives

Born and raised on "the farm" in the midwest, I'm a civil libertarian and during law school I worked for the prosecutor and public defender. Our legal system is a mess and certainly has nothing to do with "justice" on either side. You realize that you could be banging your girlfriend, she say's no/stop and you thrust into her one more time you're a rapist and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life if convicted? If our legal system was perfect and actually wanted justice then I would have no problem. Seeing it as I have, I do require a pattern of conduct. Mistakes are made constantly and when a public defender can fall asleep multiple times during a death penalty case trial and it's NOT grounds for appeal.....

 

[Gambino]

Born and raised on "the farm" in the midwest, I'm a civil libertarian and during law school I worked for the prosecutor and public defender. Our legal system is a mess and certainly has nothing to do with "justice" on either side. You realize that you could be banging your girlfriend, she say's no/stop and you thrust into her one more time you're a rapist and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life if convicted? If our legal system was perfect and actually wanted justice then I would have no problem. Seeing it as I have, I do require a pattern of conduct. Mistakes are made constantly and when a public defender can fall asleep multiple times during a death penalty case trial and it's NOT grounds for appeal.....

so you believe their is a certain level of raping that is, per se, somewhat acceptable?? i just wanna make sure i understand, date rape vics are not as damaged as random rapes?
i bet the vics would disagree
and maybe i should go back and read the whole thread, i have no idea what napping defenders has to do with this subject

 

[TC2]

Isn't statutory rape even of the willing considered a sex crime?

That is what I have a problem with.

yep, It happened to an old friend of mine.

Guy 19..hooks up with girl 16(he did not know, he met her in a club, plus she looks 23).

Guy gets tired of girls crazy shit breaks it off with her.

girl gets vindictive and gets him into trouble.

Now guy is registered sex offender.

 

[Wulfgar]

lol
only california peeps bitch about rights for sex offenders and other waste
i don't get it

try having your state spend 500 Million $$ year 1, and then 200 Million $$ a year of YOUR TAX MONEY on an law about as useful in stopping criminal action as a cock-flavored lollypop, not to mention sets the stage for other violations of our constitutional rights and throws due process out the window then come talk to me.

 

[jnevin]

so you believe their is a certain level of raping that is, per se, somewhat acceptable?? i just wanna make sure i understand, date rape vics are not as damaged as random rapes?
i bet the vics would disagree
and maybe i should go back and read the whole thread, i have no idea what napping defenders has to do with this subject

Dude, sometimes you pick the stupidest details to try to pick apart.

 

[Lao Tzu]

notice the people who agree with wulfgar are largely cali progressives

Yup, except I'm in Indiana. If anyone here has a better idea I'm all ears. But sex crime is a serious issue in teh world and we are not dealing with it right now. We are just driving it underground and ignorning it with our current methods.

 

[patsfan1379]

sex crimes = teh gaye

 

[javaguru]

so you believe their is a certain level of raping that is, per se, somewhat acceptable?? i just wanna make sure i understand, date rape vics are not as damaged as random rapes?
i bet the vics would disagree
and maybe i should go back and read the whole thread, i have no idea what napping defenders has to do with this subject

I posted how the legal definition of a sex offender isn't as easy as proponents of these bills would have you believe. We had a case come before our court where the kid was sixteen and the girl was seventeen, she admitted to consenting to sex but then withdrew consent because "she felt like a slut." Her withdraw of consent was, " I don't think I should be doing this. Followed later with, I don't want to do this anymore" He "finished" within moments but her parents found out( she was busted for underage consumption when the cops raided the party) and wanted to press the issue, not her. We offered him a lesser charge so that he wouldn't be labeled a sex offender for life, not to mention it was not a "rape" case from a real world stance even though he was a rapist based on a strict legal definition. I'm sure she felt really bad about this guy going through hell because she was trying to cover her ass with her parents, that was the consensus at the prosecutor's office. Had it been an election year and it been made an issue, we could have easily pushed for a conviction(pleading) with a sentence recommendation. The kid's family didn't have the means to fight the case long term and the judge trying the case was a prosecutor for almost twenty years, generally favorable to the prosecution in her judgements. Basically, we could label a kid a sex offender for life if it suited someone even though nobody thought he was...

It's easy to use a pedophile example to justify the law. It's not so easy when someone consents to sex and then withdraws consent during the act. You're saying a pedophile case is the same as someone capable of giving consent, engages in the act willingly and decides to withdraw consent during the act?

 

[patsfan1379]

You guys are too smart for me... I just want to see criminals who commit sex acts against children die by slowly dripping battery acid into their eyeballs.

The means that get to that end I dont know how to do...

 

[Gambino]

I posted how the legal definition of a sex offender isn't as easy as proponents of these bills would have you believe. We had a case come before our court where the kid was sixteen and the girl was seventeen, she admitted to consenting to sex but then withdrew consent because "she felt like a slut." Her withdraw of consent was, " I don't think I should be doing this. Followed later with, I don't want to do this anymore" He "finished" within moments but her parents found out( she was busted for underage consumption when the cops raided the party) and wanted to press the issue, not her. We offered him a lesser charge so that he wouldn't be labeled a sex offender for life, not to mention it was not a "rape" case from a real world stance even though he was a rapist based on a strict legal definition. I'm sure she felt really bad about this guy going through hell because she was trying to cover her ass with her parents, that was the consensus at the prosecutor's office. Had it been an election year and it been made an issue, we could have easily pushed for a conviction(pleading) with a sentence recommendation. The kid's family didn't have the means to fight the case long term and the judge trying the case was a prosecutor for almost twenty years, generally favorable to the prosecution in her judgements. Basically, we could label a kid a sex offender for life if it suited someone even though nobody thought he was...

It's easy to use a pedophile example to justify the law. It's not so easy when someone consents to sex and then withdraws consent during the act. You're saying a pedophile case is the same as someone capable of giving consent, engages in the act willingly and decides to withdraw consent during the act?

certainly not and the distinction should be made
i hate bullshit cases like that, own up to it

 

[mrplunkey]

You guys are hilarious making it sound like someone can just casually get convicted of a sex crime.

1) Even if you have the "drunk, unwelcome grab at the breast" or the "accidental underage hookup", those crimes almost always get pleaded-down to non-sexual crimes. It's not worth the prosecutors office running a sex crimes case till the bitter end when they can get you to plead a lesser crime and be done with the case.

2) So lets say they do want to go after someone over a grab at a breast or underage hookup. Most states (Tennessee sure does) will allow diversion for first time offenders. Here, when that 46 year old pervert decides he's in love with a 15 year old girl, he can divert his class "E" felony and have it completely eliminated from his record. Hence, in the eyes of the law it never even happened -- he didn't even need to enter a plea.

Now what if you already have a criminal history or riddled past and have blown your chance at diversion? Well then -- guess you better not be grabbing breasts or failing to check ID on that sweet young hookup.

 

[WODIN]

and who did mark foley have sex with?
hmmm??

Probably Ted haggard....*RIMSHOT*

 

[javaguru]

You guys are hilarious making it sound like someone can just casually get convicted of a sex crime.

1) Even if you have the "drunk, unwelcome grab at the breast" or the "accidental underage hookup", those crimes almost always get pleaded-down to non-sexual crimes. It's not worth the prosecutors office running a sex crimes case till the bitter end when they can get you to plead a lesser crime and be done with the case.

2) So lets say they do want to go after someone over a grab at a breast or underage hookup. Most states (Tennessee sure does) will allow diversion for first time offenders. Here, when that 46 year old pervert decides he's in love with a 15 year old girl, he can divert his class "E" felony and have it completely eliminated from his record. Hence, in the eyes of the law it never even happened -- he didn't even need to enter a plea.

Now what if you already have a criminal history or riddled past and have blown your chance at diversion? Well then -- guess you better not be grabbing breasts or failing to check ID on that sweet young hookup.

It's easy to be convicted of a crime period. At least here in Toledo, I watched a guy get sentenced to a year in prison because he knocked a guy down as he was getting removed from a bar. The guy claimed he hurt his shoulder in the fall which meant the guy was charged with an F2, felonious assault(5-7 yrs in prison) and he plead to an F4 aggravated assault because it wasn't worth risking the prison time on a jury trial. The prosecutor will over charge you because he doesn't want a trial and over charging is the easiest way to arrange a plea. In one of our cases a guy didn't take a plea we offered to an F4, he took it to trial and put a dozen witnesses on the stand who all testified the three skinheads he beat up "started the fight." The jury must have felt it didn't meet the standard for provocation and convicted him of an F2 felonious assault and he got five years in prison for breaking a guy's nose who started the bar fight, he had no prior history of violent crimes. In the legal field there is something called the "trial tax," it means that if you exercise your constitutional right to a trial you will be penalized if you lose by being given a harsher sentence. God help you if it's an election year and your "case" is on the agenda of a canidate or your judge's. When I was at the prosecutor's office we were required to follow through with EVERY domestic violence case regardless if the victim was willing to cooperate or not. Now, do you follow through with charging the victim of a DV case with filing a false police report/perjury when they recant their story and make you look like a fool? What good is served by that? The legal system isn't as cut and dried as people like to portray it.

In Ohio, you could plead your rape/child molestation case down to jay walking (of course that would never happen) but every judge and prosecutor can look at your sheet and know what you have been charged with in the past regardless of the conviction or plea. You're crazy if you think that doesn't factor into the judge's or prosecutor's decision making on a case.

As a practical matter, tracking criminals has been a dismal failure in regard to informing the public or controlling repeat offenders. Our entire parole/probation system is set up to track convicted criminals and has no impact on preventing repeat offenders. When was the last time you checked the sex offender database? Do you check it weekly or even monthly?

 

[radarstoy]

try having your state spend 500 Million $$ year 1, and then 200 Million $$ a year of YOUR TAX MONEY on an law about as useful in stopping criminal action as a cock-flavored lollypop, not to mention sets the stage for other violations of our constitutional rights and throws due process out the window then come talk to me.

Now what flavor might that be?..orange..grape Personally I like chocolate

Peace

 

[patsfan1379]

It's easy to be convicted of a crime period. At least here in Toledo, I watched a guy get sentenced to a year in prison because he knocked a guy down as he was getting removed from a bar. The guy claimed he hurt his shoulder in the fall which meant the guy was charged with an F2, felonious assault(5-7 yrs in prison) and he plead to an F4 aggravated assault because it wasn't worth risking the prison time on a jury trial. The prosecutor will over charge you because he doesn't want a trial and over charging is the easiest way to arrange a plea. In one of our cases a guy didn't take a plea we offered to an F4, he took it to trial and put a dozen witnesses on the stand who all testified the three skinheads he beat up "started the fight." The jury must have felt it didn't meet the standard for provocation and convicted him of an F2 felonious assault and he got five years in prison for breaking a guy's nose who started the bar fight, he had no prior history of violent crimes. In the legal field there is something called the "trial tax," it means that if you exercise your constitutional right to a trial you will be penalized if you lose by being given a harsher sentence. God help you if it's an election year and your "case" is on the agenda of a canidate or your judge's. When I was at the prosecutor's office we were required to follow through with EVERY domestic violence case regardless if the victim was willing to cooperate or not. Now, do you follow through with charging the victim of a DV case with filing a false police report/perjury when they recant their story and make you look like a fool? What good is served by that? The legal system isn't as cut and dried as people like to portray it.

In Ohio, you could plead your rape/child molestation case down to jay walking (of course that would never happen) but every judge and prosecutor can look at your sheet and know what you have been charged with in the past regardless of the conviction or plea. You're crazy if you think that doesn't factor into the judge's or prosecutor's decision making on a case.

As a practical matter, tracking criminals has been a dismal failure in regard to informing the public or controlling repeat offenders. Our entire parole/probation system is set up to track convicted criminals and has no impact on preventing repeat offenders. When was the last time you checked the sex offender database? Do you check it weekly or even monthly?

holy fucking smart

 

[mrplunkey]

It's easy to be convicted of a crime period. At least here in Toledo, I watched a guy get sentenced to a year in prison because he knocked a guy down as he was getting removed from a bar. The guy claimed he hurt his shoulder in the fall which meant the guy was charged with an F2, felonious assault(5-7 yrs in prison) and he plead to an F4 aggravated assault because it wasn't worth risking the prison time on a jury trial. The prosecutor will over charge you because he doesn't want a trial and over charging is the easiest way to arrange a plea. In one of our cases a guy didn't take a plea we offered to an F4, he took it to trial and put a dozen witnesses on the stand who all testified the three skinheads he beat up "started the fight." The jury must have felt it didn't meet the standard for provocation and convicted him of an F2 felonious assault and he got five years in prison for breaking a guy's nose who started the bar fight, he had no prior history of violent crimes. In the legal field there is something called the "trial tax," it means that if you exercise your constitutional right to a trial you will be penalized if you lose by being given a harsher sentence. God help you if it's an election year and your "case" is on the agenda of a canidate or your judge's. When I was at the prosecutor's office we were required to follow through with EVERY domestic violence case regardless if the victim was willing to cooperate or not. Now, do you follow through with charging the victim of a DV case with filing a false police report/perjury when they recant their story and make you look like a fool? What good is served by that? The legal system isn't as cut and dried as people like to portray it.

In Ohio, you could plead your rape/child molestation case down to jay walking (of course that would never happen) but every judge and prosecutor can look at your sheet and know what you have been charged with in the past regardless of the conviction or plea. You're crazy if you think that doesn't factor into the judge's or prosecutor's decision making on a case.

As a practical matter, tracking criminals has been a dismal failure in regard to informing the public or controlling repeat offenders. Our entire parole/probation system is set up to track convicted criminals and has no impact on preventing repeat offenders. When was the last time you checked the sex offender database? Do you check it weekly or even monthly?

All interesting stuff, and you've obviously worked in the field for quite some time.

I guess i'm jaded by my visit to Randy Nichols office about 4 months ago. We had a meeting on another matter and he was going-off on how Statuatory Rape is a class "E" felony in the state of Tennessee and every single first-offender case gets diverted. Some of the examples where heinous too -- like 45 year old guys and 14 year old girls.

 

[jnevin]

All interesting stuff, and you've obviously worked in the field for quite some time.

I guess i'm jaded by my visit to Randy Nichols office about 4 months ago. We had a meeting on another matter and he was going-off on how Statuatory Rape is a class "E" felony in the state of Tennessee and every single first-offender case gets diverted. Some of the examples where heinous too -- like 45 year old guys and 14 year old girls.

That's more like child molestation than statuatory rape, imo.

 

[javaguru]

All interesting stuff, and you've obviously worked in the field for quite some time.

I guess i'm jaded by my visit to Randy Nichols office about 4 months ago. We had a meeting on another matter and he was going-off on how Statuatory Rape is a class "E" felony in the state of Tennessee and every single first-offender case gets diverted. Some of the examples where heinous too -- like 45 year old guys and 14 year old girls.

It's interesting you bring up statuatory rape. In most of the Western World the age of consent is under eighteen, it's quite common for a 40 year old man to be married to a girl under eighteen. You also have the double standard where females designated as a sex offender receive lighter sentences than their male counterparts but that is another thread. I always thought it ironic we entrust a sixteen year old with driving a car but they aren't mature enough to choose a sex partner? When I was in college my friend was nineteen when he had consensual sex with a fifteen year old, he missed the age difference exception by a year and was charged with statuatory rape. He plead to "corruption of a minor" and got a short jail sentence. He couldn't join the army because they will take people with a criminal past but not when it involves a minor...regardless of circumstance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Statutory_rape