What to do about sex offenders

[ShyGuyInChicago]

What solutions do you have? My solution is this: We should make it mandatory that all sex offenders received treatment since studies have shown that sex offenders who received treatment re-offend less often than those who do not. If they are considered for parole and still not deemed rehabilitated, then thy stay in jail and continue rehabilitation until the next time they are eligible for parole or the end of their sentence. If by the end of their sentence they are not rehabilitated then they should be sent to civilly committed in mental hospitals.
http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html

Does anyone agree do you have any other solutions?

[Dimitri]

Peronsally I htink they should have their privet parts cute off (I have experienced a sex-offender frist hand) and then let the court system sentence them to life in prision and then BUBBA take care of them..................don't drop the soap!!

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Peronsally I htink they should have their privet parts cute off (I have experienced a sex-offender frist hand) and then let the court system sentence them to life in prision and then BUBBA take care of them..................don't drop the soap!!

I am sorry that you have experienced such trauma, and I understand how such a thing happening to sex offenders can be be satisfying to you, but there is no way that castration should be tolerated since it is considered cruel and unusual punishment. I am not even gonna get into the whole prison rape things since I am unlikely to change your mind on that.

[Dimitri]

I am sorry that you have experienced such trauma, and I understand how such a thing happening to sex offenders can be be satisfying to you, but there is no way that castration should be tolerated since it is considered cruel and unusual punishment. I am not even gonna get into the whole prison rape things since I am unlikely to change your mind on that.
Sorry about that slight rant of mine, I needed to let it out. You're right.

Let's change it and say that we make it so they can not have children.

[Magus]

Make it mandatory to rehabilitate all of them. Quote me with an argument up and ready.

[Dimitri]

Make it mandatory to rehabilitate all of them. Quote me with an argument up and ready.
Ehh...I just finished a speach and debate tourny and am not ready for another, debating with you would actually cause me to work at it soooooo not today man. :drunk:

[Korashk]

First we need to make it so that doing things not legitimately deserving of punishment doesn't brand you a sex offender. Then we can talk.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

First we need to make it so that doing things not legitimately deserving of punishment doesn't brand you a sex offender. Then we can talk.

By sex offender I meant attempted or completed rape, unwanted sexual touching, statutory rape, flashing, peeping/unlawful surveillance. People convinced of those crimes should be considered sex offenders.

[TuRdz]

We should make it mandatory that all sex offenders received treatment since studies have shown that sex offenders who received treatment re-offend less often than those who do not.

I would not agree with this. If they're still doing it after treatment, then why bother??:confused: Treatment is supposed to stop them from repeating. With emphasis on the "stop". A sample of treated sex offenders repeating "LESS" than untreated just doesn't quite cut it for me :( Sorry to disagree.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I would not agree with this. If they're still doing it after treatment, then why bother??:confused: Treatment is supposed to stop them from repeating. With emphasis on the "stop". A sample of treated sex offenders repeating "LESS" than untreated just doesn't quite cut it for me :( Sorry to disagree.

I think you misunderstood. By the way in case I was not clear, when I said sex offenders who are treated re-offend less often I meant that as a whole they re-offend less often if they get get treatment. I was not talking about individual sex offenders. In other words, if a sex offender gets treatment, it is far more likely that he/she will never re-offend again.

[BFG9001]

By sex offender I meant attempted or completed rape, unwanted sexual touching, statutory rape, flashing, peeping/unlawful surveillance. People convinced of those crimes should be considered sex offenders.

Flashing? No. Peeping? No. Those should not be there. Rest are acceptable.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Flashing? No. Peeping? No. Those should not be there. Rest are acceptable.

Why do you say that? What about flashing or peeping on people who are minors?

[deadpie]

Peronsally I htink they should have their privet parts cute off (I have experienced a sex-offender frist hand) and then let the court system sentence them to life in prision and then BUBBA take care of them..................don't drop the soap!!

And this is coming from someone who dealt with a sexual abuse for most of my childhood -

Rehabilitate them. I do believe that people do commit rape for certain reasons and motives such as the cycle of violence or a fetish that got out of control for examples.

People can be 'fixed'. Not everyone is as sick as we think they are once you start to understand what brought them to what they did.

As for if you're talking about a rapist with no feelings, which would mean he/she is psychotic, then I'd say they should still be rehabilitated because a psychotic person is technically insane (They can't feel human emotion).

By sex offender I meant attempted or completed rape, unwanted sexual touching, statutory rape, flashing, peeping/unlawful surveillance. People convinced of those crimes should be considered sex offenders.

Ha, so technically I should have my balls cut off or to some people be killed right on stop. Yeah, I've flashed to a few people. The reasons aren't anything I want to go in detail about, but it's seriously not THAT huge of a deal. So what if someone is peeping on you? Seriously as long as they aren't snapping pictures of me I'll let anyone watch me piss in the bathroom or stand outside my window spying on me.

You also have to take in case that some people LIE. I know, I'll get a shit load of shit for this, but there is people who lie about being raped or overly exaggerate about being touched, then the so called offender gets a shit load of time in jail.

Also, fapping in public can simply get you on the sex offender list for life. That sounds great fun, eh? You could just be in your car jerking it and get caught, then your entire life is ruined. Yeah, one simple mistake, but is it really THAT big of a deal?

Why do you say that? What about flashing or peeping on people who are minors?

So some eight year old kid sees some random guy flop out his dick. It's not like that kid is going to literally have nightmares of seeing a guy flop out his dick for years and get PTSD from it. That's not that big of a deal. Sure, it's wrong, but it's not like he's raping the kid. Now that would actually be traumatizing.

Some offences are taken too seriously and put on too much punishment. Even though this is off topic, I would definitely say drug offences are way too fucking heavy and stupid.

Rehabilitation would probably work best, but the only problem is that it'll require allot more money, more people, and a system that actually gives a shit about what it's doing.

That's not happening anytime soon.

[BFG9001]

Why do you say that? What about flashing or peeping on people who are minors?

Haven't you ever wanted to look in the girl/boy's locker room?

[Spock]

Death to all good for nothing sex creaps

[Amnesiac]

Death to all good for nothing sex creaps

And this, folks, is why we have a judicial system, and a constitution.

[TuRdz]

And this, folks, is why we have a judicial system, and a constitution.

I can agree to that.

[Continuum]

Death to all good for nothing sex creaps

Go back to your Cave, Neanderthal.

[huginnmuninn]

You also have to take in case that some people LIE. I know, I'll get a shit load of shit for this, but there is people who lie about being raped or overly exaggerate about being touched, then the so called offender gets a shit load of time in jail.

yea i knew a teacher who sent a kid to the principals office for doing something and the kid told the principal that the teacher was touching him so they had to put up cameras in the teachers class room. You have to be careful with stuff like that because it could seriously ruin someones life.

[RoseyCadaver]

I believe the severity of the crime should be the severity of the punishment.I think as in sexual assault like in touching someone and not really much a couple of years.Stuff like rape I think they deserve at least 5 to 10 years.I find the death penalty over the top,but none the less a sick child pedophile or serial rapist deserves some real hard time.

[gabzas331]

There was a 15 year old kid in one of the schools in my city who followed a girl from his school home and raped her. His punishment? A two-day exclusion from school and six months probation. Nowhere near enough.


-G

[Korashk]

Why should people who commit sex-based crimes be treated any differently than people who commit non-sex-based crimes in an official capacity?

[Jimes2]

As Adam Carolla has suggested, send them all to their own island called Pedif Isle

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Why should people who commit sex-based crimes be treated any differently than people who commit non-sex-based crimes in an official capacity?

Sex crimes affect people worse than other crimes. There is greater feeling of depression, shame, guilt, stigma, and trauma. that is why most news organization do not name sex crime victims. I feel that because of this we must do all we can to prevent sex offenders from offending again. We should also find ways to prevent people from becoming sex crimes, but that is another issue.

[Genghis Khan]

Get a big hairy man to rape them, see how they like it.

[Korashk]

Sex crimes affect people worse than other crimes. There is greater feeling of depression, shame, guilt, stigma, and trauma.
So what? You're saying that the punishment for a crime should be worse based on how the victims feel afterwards. This is a ridiculous proposition that can't be defended logically.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

So what? You're saying that the punishment for a crime should be worse based on how the victims feel afterwards. This is a ridiculous proposition that can't be defended logically.

I do not think the punishments should always be worse. But because they affect their victims worse than other crimes, they should be treated differently as in they should have to register so people know where they live and they should be forced to undergo rehabilitation to decrease the odds that they commit sex crimes again.

[Death]

Get a big hairy man to rape them, see how they like it.

Assuming that the sex crime in question actually is rape.

[Korashk]

I do not think the punishments should always be worse. But because they affect their victims worse than other crimes, they should be treated differently as in they should have to register so people know where they live and they should be forced to undergo rehabilitation to decrease the odds that they commit sex crimes again.
Do you not know what 'worse' means? If I steal something, I wouldn't have my name on a list, wouldn't (under your proposed system) be forced to undergo rehabilitation. Just jail and maybe a fine.

The thing is, is that one can not use the victim's psychological state after the crime to determine the punishment for that crime. This is because people react differently to different things. Saying that "they affect their victims worse than other crimes" simply isn't true. Fundamentally, there is nothing different between rape (the only real sex crime) and simple assault, except the punishments.

Assuming that the sex crime in question actually is rape.
Rape is the only legitimate sex crime.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Do you not know what 'worse' means? If I steal something, I wouldn't have my name on a list, wouldn't (under your proposed system) be forced to undergo rehabilitation. Just jail and maybe a fine.

The thing is, is that one can not use the victim's psychological state after the crime to determine the punishment for that crime. This is because people react differently to different things. Saying that "they affect their victims worse than other crimes" simply isn't true. Fundamentally, there is nothing different between rape (the only real sex crime) and simple assault, except the punishments.


Rape is the only legitimate sex crime.

Then what are people supposed to use to determine punishment? I imagine that what happens to victim is very important, as well as the threat the criminal poses to society.

Why do you feel that rape is the only legitimate sex crime? What about child molestation? What about creating child porn? Groping? Flashing someone (a complete stranger or a child)? Masturbating in front of a stranger (especially a child)? Drilling a whole in a locker room to watch people undress or shower?

[Korashk]

Then what are people supposed to use to determine punishment? I imagine that what happens to victim is very important, as well as the threat the criminal poses to society.
Yes, what happens to the victim is important. Not how the victim feels. There isn't a one size fits all psychological outcome for anything. Saying that sex crimes affect people more is simply false. They may tend to, but for every example of a person broken by sexual assault I can give you a person who got over it and didn't let their lives change. For every example of a person who gets over a robbery you provide I can provide an example of a person who can never feel safe again. Do you understand?

Why do you feel that rape is the only legitimate sex crime? What about child molestation? What about creating child porn? Groping? Flashing someone (a complete stranger or a child)? Masturbating in front of a stranger (especially a child)? Drilling a whole in a locker room to watch people undress or shower?
Child molestation is rape. Creating child porn is a gray area, but I see no problem as long as the child isn't being coerced. Groping is rape. I'm against public nudity laws so flashing is moot, as is having sex in public neither of these things does any harm to anybody. As for peeping, depends on the rules of the establishment, but I'd call that trespassing.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I think it is more than how a victims feels. Lots of people who are raped, molested, etc suffer mental issues such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/effects-of-sexual-assault

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Effects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_rape_and_aftermath

When it comes to child porn it should be illegal because children do not have the mental capacity to consent to sex.

I am curious as to why you do not believe that public nudity/masturbation/sex acts should not be illegal.

[Patchy]

I believe the severity of the crime should be the severity of the punishment.

Agreed. If its something nothing too major (well tbh any sexual offence is majory) then perhaps rehabilitation or a few years in jail. But major offences should be life in jail.

I only believe the death penalty should be used if it is some form of murder.

[Korashk]

II am curious as to why you do not believe that public nudity/masturbation/sex acts should not be illegal.
Do you mean, why do I think they shouldn't be illegal?

It's because being naked harms no one. If nudity disgusts or offends you, that's your problem, not the naked person's.

[Death]

Rape is the only legitimate sex crime.

If this is true for a particular area, then I would find imprisonment to probably be more suitable than rehabilitation.

[TheSleepingInsomniac]

Make it mandatory to rehabilitate all of them. Quote me with an argument up and ready.

Not all sex offenders can be reabillatated.
I believe that for a first offence a sex offender should be sent to be rehabilitated and then the rest of their sentence in a separate sector of a prison.
Any offence after that should be a life sentence for each child harmed.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Do you mean, why do I think they shouldn't be illegal?

It's because being naked harms no one. If nudity disgusts or offends you, that's your problem, not the naked person's.

Public nudity/sex acts (committed by adults) can traumatize children as they are not yet developed enough. Also, what do you think about adults having sex with teenagers. I am not talking about things such as an 18 year old and 16 or even 15 year old having sex. I think that should be illegal because of the harm done to the younger person who cannot consent to sex with an adult but or should be treated less harshly.

[anonymous53]

I'm gonna have to say this


Let 50 of the person whom they hurt older brothers/uncles/ male friends take the offender out to a field and beat the crap out of him. If he lives he gets sent to a minimum security prison in general population. All inmates are notified that this person is a sex offender and what his crime was. If he lives throughout his sentence he'll know better than to do it again.

[Korashk]

Public nudity/sex acts (committed by adults) can traumatize children as they are not yet developed enough.
Yeah, lets see some data suggesting that nudity traumatizes children. I doubt it exists.

Also, what do you think about adults having sex with teenagers.
As long as the teen consents I'm okay with it.

I think that should be illegal because of the harm done to the younger person who cannot consent to sex with an adult but or should be treated less harshly.
You're making the (faulty) de facto assumption that a teen is incapable of consenting to sex.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Yeah, lets see some data suggesting that nudity traumatizes children. I doubt it exists.


As long as the teen consents I'm okay with it.


You're making the (faulty) de facto assumption that a teen is incapable of consenting to sex.

Teens are not always incapable of consenting to sex. Teens are most likely unable to consent to sex with someone several years older. But when it comes to sex with someone older, they may not be able to make an informed decision about sex. Teens do not always have the capacity to foresee long term consequences of their actions. When it comes to adults, adults might choose to have sex with teens because teens are naturally curious about sex, and teens are easier to control and coerce. Also, teens might feel like they cannot say "no" to adults who coerce sex. This is why we need statutory rape laws: so that we can help prevent adults from sexually taking advantage of teens.

EDIT:

Plus, I am pretty sure that if an adult were to expose himself to a child, the child would run the risk of being traumatized albeit probably not to the same extent as being molested/raped.

[Perseus]

EDIT:

Plus, I am pretty sure that if an adult were to expose himself to a child, the child would run the risk of being traumatized albeit probably not to the same extent as being molested/raped.

That makes no sense. Nudity is natural. A penis is a penis, regardless of how old you are, same with a vagina and boobs.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

That makes no sense. Nudity is natural. A penis is a penis, regardless of how old you are, same with a vagina and boobs.

Why do you feel that way? Out of curiosity do you believe that public nudity, indecent exposure, and flashing people (even children) should be legal?

[Korashk]

Plus, I am pretty sure that if an adult were to expose himself to a child, the child would run the risk of being traumatized albeit probably not to the same extent as being molested/raped.
How come? Since you can't or won't provide evidence supporting this assertion, provide an argument.

[Perseus]

Why do you feel that way? Out of curiosity do you believe that public nudity, indecent exposure, and flashing people (even children) should be legal?

Public nudity is completely different than indecent exposure and flashing. The latter two are more sexual, and nudity is natural. I don't see how you could scar a kid when they see themselves (and possibly others) naked every day.

[RoseyCadaver]

Public nudity is completely different than indecent exposure and flashing. The latter two are more sexual, and nudity is natural. I don't see how you could scar a kid when they see themselves (and possibly others) naked every day.

I agree.What are we gonna do next,cover all the animals penises and vaginas?Heck might as well make underwear for a plant's pistil and stamen.

I am for one don't really wanna see a naked person walking down the street,if they want to and choose to,then they should be able to.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Public nudity is completely different than indecent exposure and flashing. The latter two are more sexual, and nudity is natural. I don't see how you could scar a kid when they see themselves (and possibly others) naked every day.

Do you think that flashing a child could scar them?

[Genghis Khan]

Do you think that flashing a child could scar them?

As long as you're not inappropriately touching them or forcing them to do anything they don't want, I think it's highly unlikely that a naked man/woman could scar a child, even at a young age.

[Perseus]

Do you think that flashing a child could scar them?

How does that scar a child? Children don't think of nudity as we do. Just look at any little kid. My little cousins would take off their clothes and run around naked all the time.

[Death]

Do you think that flashing a child could scar them?

Except that children aren't born with the delusion that nudity is something disgusting and immoral; they would only believe that once society rams its bullshit inhibitions down their throat. I don't know about you, but given the fact that all babies are born naked, they wouldn't particually think much of seeing another person naked at a young age, or even at an older age if no-one tries to force their conservative values onto them.

[aussiebunnie]

Teens are not always incapable of consenting to sex. Teens are most likely unable to consent to sex with someone several years older. But when it comes to sex with someone older, they may not be able to make an informed decision about sex. Teens do not always have the capacity to foresee long term consequences of their actions. When it comes to adults, adults might choose to have sex with teens because teens are naturally curious about sex, and teens are easier to control and coerce. Also, teens might feel like they cannot say "no" to adults who coerce sex. This is why we need statutory rape laws: so that we can help prevent adults from sexually taking advantage of teens.

EDIT:

Plus, I am pretty sure that if an adult were to expose himself to a child, the child would run the risk of being traumatized albeit probably not to the same extent as being molested/raped.

I agree but I wonder when they prosecute people, should the issue with consent by a factor to consider. For example many times younger guys have sex with older women and one could say that the younger guy coerced the older women (and would probably do it again if he had the chance). I think the law was designed to protect young girls being subject to older men (power difference), but I sometimes think the if a guy whose young buy big may have as much influence over a women as an adult man would.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Except that children aren't born with the delusion that nudity is something disgusting and immoral; they would only believe that once society rams its bullshit inhibitions down their throat. I don't know about you, but given the fact that all babies are born naked, they wouldn't particually think much of seeing another person naked at a young age, or even at an older age if no-one tries to force their conservative values onto them.

Well, if an adult were to flash or expose his/her genitals to a child that could be a precursor to sexual abuse. Flashing is often done for sexual gratification or is simply an act of power and control that uses a a sexual act to achieve the control/power. Have you considered that?

[Death]

Well, if an adult were to flash or expose his/her genitals to a child that could be a precursor to sexual abuse.

That doesn't meant that it will be sexual abuse though. All I was saying was that exposure to genitals itself should not (and will not unless forced otherwise) be an issue with the recipient. Flashing is only a problem because we make it a problem. In fact, forget flashing, being naked full stop shouldn't be a problem outside it being impractical for various situations.

Flashing is often done for sexual gratification or is simply an act of power and control that uses a a sexual act to achieve the control/power. Have you considered that?

Have you considered that maybe I don't care what goes through someone's mind, so long as they don't act on anything which might be abusive (and by abusive, I'm talking about more than just showing someone something as mundane as a penis or a vagina)?

[Perseus]

Well, if an adult were to flash or expose his/her genitals to a child that could be a precursor to sexual abuse. Flashing is often done for sexual gratification or is simply an act of power and control that uses a a sexual act to achieve the control/power. Have you considered that?

What?

[ShyGuyInChicago]

What?

People flash for sexual gratification and to impose sexuality on people.

[Perseus]

People flash for sexual gratification and to impose sexuality on people.

I have never heard that before.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I have never heard that before.

You haven't? Why?

Anyway, I was wondering do you think that it also not harmful if an adult were to send pornographic images to a minor?

[aussiebunnie]

I have never heard that before.

"An individuals experience to indecent exposure to the child is prevalent before sexual offending. The individual becomes desensitized to the harm victims experience. Continuing behavior such as the above increase the risk that the person will sexually abuse a child"

- Linz, D., and D. Imrich (2001). “Child Pornography.” In S. White, ed., Handbook of Youth and Justice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

[Perseus]

You haven't? Why?

Anyway, I was wondering do you think that it also not harmful if an adult were to send pornographic images to a minor?

Pornographic does not equate to nudity. That's just creepy, but if the minor consented willingly to it, then I shouldn't interfere. I just because I find something odd and creepy, does not mean I should force my views down their throat. Obviously, if it were not consented, I think it shouldn't happen.

[Spock]

death penalty death penalty death penalty

[RoseyCadaver]

death penalty death penalty death penalty

I'm going to quote donkey/Jon

[QUOTEWe kill people who kill people to show others that killing is wrong./QUOTE]

Your logic can't be tolerated.We must dispose of you!XD.Jk

Again as I said,it should all be on how the severity of the crime.You should lock up someone over grabbing a girl's boob for life.In no way,should anyone be killed over a sex crime,not matter how bad it is!


Screw this don't argue over a quote you two!

[Korashk]

We kill people that murder people to show that murdering is wrong.
Fixed that quote for you.

[Death]

Fixed that quote for you.

Tell me you're being sarcastic. I think he knew what he was saying.

[joeyjorulz]

make em eunuchs...woman I dunno maybe sew em up permanently

[Korashk]

Tell me you're being sarcastic. I think he knew what he was saying.
I'm aware, it's strawman rhetoric that opponents of the death penalty say to try and undermine the opposing position. The fact of the matter is that killers don't get the death penalty. Murderers do. Kill is not a synonym of murder.

[Death]

I'm aware, it's strawman rhetoric that opponents of the death penalty say to try and undermine the opposing position. The fact of the matter is that killers don't get the death penalty. Murderers do. Kill is not a synonym of murder.

Is there a good reason for killing someone who could well be innocent and later found to be so?

Hang on, forgive me, but aren't you the one who believes that killing two year olds isn't murder?

[Death]

I would have said this before, but I've just noticed:

death penalty death penalty death penalty

http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2010/78195-triple%20face%20palm.jpg

Tell me you're joking.