I just had a visit from the cops.

[JackBeck]

I live in a brand new condo building in New Jersey (our first purchase) and I'm sitting here in my jammies and the doorbell rings. Peep through the peephole and see a cop at my door. Turns out there's a sex offender that lives in the neighborhood and I was handed a flier with the dudes picture on it, his physical stats, and what crime he committed. Have I mentioned yet that his address is on the flier, as well? I then was informed that this is part of "Meagan's Law" and I had to sign my name to their paper to let whomever it may concern that I got the information and understood what was being told to me.

Now (this is the Lounge people) this made me feel very weird, especially the address and picture. I am not a parent yet, but I would want to know where my child is at all times. What service does it do to inform your neighbors that you live with a sex offender?

When I lived in Brooklyn, the New York Post would just post the pictures of sex offenders and what neighborhood they lived in. I feel what happened tonight went too far.

[SeattleGirl]

1. As a mother, I would want to know as much as I could about a sex

offender. While in most cases, I think that once people have served a jail or prison term, they should be left alone about it, unless they violate the law again.

But sex offenders? Thus far, there really is no "cure" for that, no rehabilitation. I would not want to live in a neighborhood where a sex offender lived without knowing who it was and where he/she lived.

[JackBeck]

7. Why just single out one crime?

Why not murderers? Pickpockets? Or any crime that violates your personal space?

[SeattleGirl]

9. Not at all. As I said, there really is no way to "rehab" sex offenders.

Most people who commit murder aren't mass murderers or serial killers. (Not saying I wouldn't be nervous to have a convicted murderer living next door.)

If ever there is a way to prevent sex offenders from re-offending, then they can live in anonymity, but until then, no.

[JackBeck]

16. If my memory is correct,

I believe that most incarcerated persons are re-offenders, regardless of the crime.

[SeattleGirl]

22. I believe you are correct, Jack.

But I think it's more those who have committed robbery, sold drugs, etc. I do think our "justice" system is in serious need of an overhaul.

I AM singling sex offenders out, and while it does bother me to do that, as I said, there is yet no good rehab for them. People are working on it, for sure, and I do hope that the professionals dealing with this issue figure something out soon.

[philosophie_en_rose]

20. Because Child Predators prey on vulnerabilities and ignorance.

You cannot blame parents for the perversions of child rapists. People should know where their children are, but how many children pop outside to check the mail for mom or let the dog out? Seriously, it only takes a minute.

Joseph Duncan ranted all over the internet about poor oppressed child molestors. Then he busted into a house, killed a family and stole two children to rape. Child molestors will not be stopped by respecting their privacy. They have no right to privacy.

[rbnyc]

87. Where does it stop?

Once one type of person has no right to provicy, it becomes easier to take away another person's rights. We chip away at the rights and dignity of the monsters in our society, because why defend them, and before we know it, we've woven the legal means to destroy our own rights. Laws must pass the constitutional test, in all cases.

[rbnyc]

15. It can give you a false sense of security...

Most crimes against children are committed by people the child and parents know and trust, in many cases, another family member. Thinking that your child is safer because a person who was convicted of a sex offense has been identified to you is dangerous at best. Besides the fact that the sex offender may have been wrongly convicted, which often happens, their crime--if they did commit one--could be a number of things, from public masturbation to statutory rape. There are predators out there, and we do need to be cautious and aware, but I don't think this particular law is helpful at all in protecting children. It's an emotional reaction to a terrible situation. It's not justice and it's not a boon to public safety.

Best thing to do is to educate your child and learn the warning signs.

[JackBeck]

17. I agree, rbnyc.

Your response is very enlightening.

[rbnyc]

19. Thanks.

I've thought a lot about the subject. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about it.

[ikojo]

34. An 18 or 19 year old kid who has had sex with a 16 or 17

year old kid can be labled a sex offender if the parents of the 16 or 17 year old press charges.

[rbnyc]

38. Right.

And Meagan's law treats them the same as someone who rapes a 3-year-old.

[SeattleGirl]

66. I do have a problem with that part of the law.

An adult raping a 3-year-old is definitely NOT the same as a 16 year old having sex with a 17 year old. (Unless the 17 year old is raping the 16 year old, as opposed to it being consensual).

[rbnyc]

24. I think the question of rehabbing sex offenders...

...is inconclusive. There's evidence on both sides. Funding and public opinion have elevated the idea that sex offenders are not "treatable." However, regardless of the answer to this question...we're getting into the world of "future-crime." Can we really punish people for something they might do, or are even likely to do.

The price of freedom is sometimes danger.

[Rabrrrrrr]

127. As a person who owns stuff, I want to know about thiefs. Also murders.

I'm a car owner, so I think I should know where every car thief, vandal, or gas siphoning asshole lives, too.

I have a good sized liquor cabinet, so I want to know where everyone who ever got a DUI is located, just to see if maybe I better lock that cabinet up better.

Sometimes I take a walk, and I have to walk in the street due to no sidewalks - I want to know everyone who ever got a speeding ticket or caused a traffic accident.

I also have a certain vigilante attitude, too, so while we're on the subject of making public information that shouldn't be, I want to know who all the parents are who aren't making sure their kids are in school, so I can go make sure the kids get to school everyday, because I believe in education.

And, really, in today's world, don't you think we should have a list of all Muslims, and what kind of Islam they practice, and who their Imams are?

And anyone who wasn't born in the US - they should be singled out for paranoid, unjust ridicule as well. I want to know where the non-true-Americans are located, so I can be stupidly afraid of them.


:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Ariana Celeste]

128. preach it

:thumbsup:

[Syncronaut Seven]

130. Your odds of being struck by a car are significantly less than 1 in 3

This IS a HUGE GD PROBLEM in this nation.

Sexual preferences tend to be very hard wired after a certain point.

Serial molesters are psycopaths by nature.

What's called for here are SANER LAWS.

Ones that have the ability to distinguish.

Psycopaths don't reform, they just angle to best take what they want from their victims.

And yes, they are a group that seek absolute control over their victims, kinda like the repugs.

I'm beginning to see where the pockets of cancer are in this society, that's for sure.

The paedophile new world order want the system to fail ultimately. Gauge by the results.

[Rabrrrrrr]

131. I'm not entirely sure what you are saying.

Perhaps if you were clearer? You have a lot of sentences, but htey aren't quite related - and make some declaratives, but don't offer any substance and are missing a lot of necessary objects.

Saner laws - what do you mean? Like what? Distinguish what? Pockets are where - here on DU? Are you referring to me and others who are against sex offender registries? Or are you talking about something else?

What system do pedophiles want to fail? Guage what by what results?

You say "This" is a huge problem - what is "this"? Using words like "this" or "that" without any noun preceding them is an utterly useless form of communication.


Perhaps if you were clear, I would know what you are talking about.

Seriously, I have no idea if youfor the registries, against the registries, or somewhere in between.

:shrug:

[Kutjara]

2. I agree. It's also a waste of police resources...

..(although, to be fair, if they're handing out leaflets they're not tasering anyone, so that's a good thing), incites vigilante behavior in the community, and is an infringement of my privacy. Anyone coming to my door demanding my signature for something I didn't ask for and don't want will be leaving with a boot in his ass.

[JackBeck]

21. Well, the back of the flier did lay out the appropriate and inappropriate

rules of conduct.

As in "Do not post this flier in a public place." I can recall a few instances where this rule has not been followed.

On another note, I get intimidated by cops, so they weren't about to receive an Adidas flip-flop up their ass.

[Kutjara]

75. There was a bout of antipaedophile hysteria in the UK...

...a few years ago. I remember one incident where a pediatrician was dragged from his office and beaten badly because the mob thought the brass plaque advertising his profession was an admission of his sexual proclivities. Whenever the mob is given its way, stupidity and barbarity results.

It seems to me that, by handing out the leaflets, the police are transferring their law enforcement obligations onto the public. What do they expect people to do with the information on the leaflets? Send the person welcome cards and bake him a pie?

[JackBeck]

77. The Simpsson's constantly comment about how powerful the mob mentality

can overcome group mentality, and your example is just as culturally relevant.

Which is why I've (sarcastically) asked a few times in this thread if I should copy and paste the flier all over the neighborhood I received this evening. I know that I shouldn't, but if those who are so hell-bent on prosecuting an individual who served his time, then I wonder what's stopping them from encouraging me from making copies of my material to warn the entire neighborhood about any evil entity that may exists among us.

[Pithlet]

142. I remember reading about that.

Scary.

[pokerfan]

133. Re: I agree. It's also a waste of police resources...

What the hell is this supposed to mean??

although, to be fair, if they're handing out leaflets they're not tasering anyone, so that's a good thing

My cousin is a state cop. He has had to use the taser. Would you rather he just shoot them?

[Squatch]

3. I wouldn't have signed shit.

[JackBeck]

4. I don't even know why I did.

I was kind of overwhelmed, I guess, and taken by surprise.

[rug]

5. Me neither. Megan's Law doesn't require it either.

[JackBeck]

8. It was a law (as per the flier) the Gov. Whitman added onto Meagan's Law.

[Kali]

6. It is a weird subject.

Intellectually it bothers me. Either the time (punishment) has been served or they shouldn't be out. They don't violate the privacy of ex-robbers or other offenders (that are often just as likely to re-offend), so it bugs me.

On the other hand I haven't had to deal personally with a know offender in the neighborhood...so???:shrug: I can't say personal feelings wouldn't overcome ideals of justice.

[xchrom]

10. there's something wrong with that.

and because gay people are always a hairs breadth away from being on a list -- it really bothers me.

i'm always reminded of the children's hour by lillian helman.

i just get paranoid.

saying that -- child sex offenders present a particular problem due to recidivism.

[rbnyc]

11. As a mother, and a survivor of childhood sexual abuse...

I think Meagan's Law is bullshit. It should be ruled unconstitutional as it punishes a person twice for one crime. But also, there is so much hysteria around this issue, and so many wrongful convictions, much like the death penalty--even if you think it's okay to commit a person to death--upon inspection, you'd have to be in favor of a moratorium because of the volume of wrongful convictions and sentences that have been overturned.

Beyond that, it sets a horrible precedent, that it's ok to violate certain people's rights--that certain people are indefensible. Who
is going to stand up for a sex offender? Why should you be worried; you're not a sex offender. Well, you know how it goes...eventually, they come for you.

It's all part of this, you-have-nothing-to-be-concerned-about-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide culture, which eats the soul and is wretchedly inhospitable to originality, creativity, personality, person-hood.

[JackBeck]

13. A few things came to mind on further reflection:

1) It makes me feel like he's still paying for his crime, even though he "paid his debt to society". In a way, he's still incarcerated.

2) Will this guy now, even if he's fully reformed, be able to get a job in this neighborhood?

[rbnyc]

18. Right.

Or make friends? Will he become the victim of some kind of preemptive vigilante violence. The law has made it almost impossible for him to become an adjusted, productive citizen. May as well have killed him.

[redqueen]

23. i don't have to answer these things anymore

there's always someone here first that says what i wanted to say, and says it better, too.

:hi:

[rbnyc]

26. Hi redqueen!

It's a tough issue. Obviously we want to protect children. Oh complicated life!

:loveya:

So glad you agree with what I'm trying to say. Puts me in terrific company.

[graywarrior]

12. I received similar info here in Florida, except it was per a phone message.

When I called the police station, they told me it was standard to do that here.

[Gatchaman]

14. How about people who write bad checks?

As a small retail business owner, I'm MUCH more interested in who's going to stiff me with a rubber check. I won't hold my breath waiting for the police to bring me the dossiers on THOSE people.

Yes, this is important (I guess), but if these people are so dangerous, why the FUCK aren't they still in jail.

People are too desparate to have someone to hate.

[idgiehkt]

25. I guess they should be executed.

I'm always going to be on the side of the child when it comes to this. It's not a topic open for debate with me, so I probably won't be arguing this point. I don't think it's desperation for someone to hate, that's for sure. I had two predators in my family, one served time, the other did not. I am sure both took every opportunity to reoffend that was presented to them until they died. Sex offenders not only coerce childern, but the parents of the vulnerable children they find. They are incredibly manipulative people who are caught in repetition compulsion. It's inaccurate to compare this crime to something like writing bad checks, rather, one must compare it the compulsion behind writing bad checks, whether it's kleptomania or some other compulsive addictive behavior. I have a friend who is a recovering bullimic; she wrote so many bad checks that she can never again have a checking account in this state, but it was her addiction to binging and purging that caused the illegal behavior. With a sexual offender the illegal behavior and the compulsion are the same. It's heart-breaking people don't understand these concepts in this day and age.

Neither of the sex offenders that I knew were worth a fraction of a smidgeon of the sympathy being expressed here on this thread. That would be better directed toward their victims. There seems to be a trend of thinking that wanting to protect children from predators is somehow reactionary and coming from the right, which is utter and complete bullshit. Sexual predation on children is a right-wing institution, and it's discussion in the public sphere and advances that have been made toward prosecuting and eradicating it are outgrowths of the feminist movement.

[rbnyc]

27. I don't feel sorry for sex offenders.

I feel sorry for people who are wrongly accused, which happens all the time. I feel protective of children, who are not served by knee-jerk legislation like Meagan's law. And I feel protective of myself, you, and our rights, which become easier to denigrate when we allow them to be denigrated for people who are horrible.

[idgiehkt]

30. wrongly accused and wrongly convicted are very different.

I tried to get social services in NC to warn a family that my uncle may have been hanging around that had small children; he served 8 years for raping a 14-year-old prior. I didn't know the people, but I was hoping something could be done. Because his conviction went down before any of this legislation, and was in another state they did nothing as far as I know. Further, they acted like they didn't want to be bothered about any of it in the first place. Too bad they don't have something like that here in this state. Good news, though, he died recently.

I guess if one is opposed to this law the best thing to do is join the fight against it. I wonder if the ACLU has a position on it? I'm all for it, personally, particularly because I come from a family where those around the perp go to any length to deny what is going on right in front of their faces. I remember visiting my grandmother once when I was young when my uncle came home with a three-year old little girl, a little angel that he was 'baby sitting' for a woman that he met on a greyhound bus. My feeling is, looking back, that she probably was trading her children for drugs or something sick like that. No one did anything...no one called social services, or any of that, even though at one point the child made a comment to my grandmother that was unmistakeable that she was being sexually abused by my uncle. My grandmother's reaction was, and I quote, "children lie". Because I grew up witnessing this kind of denial I can see where society must step in when a person has a background of sexual predation on children that isn't rehab-able, especially since such a staggering percentage of the people in prison and drug treatment centers are victims of sexual abuse. This crime is probably the most expensive crime on the planet in the long run.

[rbnyc]

32. We all need to look out for each other.

I still don't think Meagan's law helps us to do that, but someone like you, who refuses to be silent, who's willing to see what's going on and do something about it...that DOES help.

I can relate to your struggles, as I was abused by an "uncle" when I was very young, and my family chose not to see.

I'm sure the ACLU opposes Meagan's Law, but I'll check.

Thanks for your post.

[JackBeck]

35. A very honest, thought out post

and thank you for sharing such a difficult story. Like rb, I had an "overly friendly" uncle. I remember trying to tell my parents when I was a teenager and they flipped out. On me. So I hope that you understand that I'm not at all sympathetic to any perpetrators.

I've got a question, though. Do you think I should make copies of this flier and post it all over the neighborhood?

[idgiehkt]

37. what is it with uncles?

it's alarming to me...

I think let law enforcement handle this the according to the laws. I keep seeing episodes of cop shows where they address this stuff, but you are the first person I know that has ever experienced seeing the actual fliers. I didn't know that they went around warning people about it personally. My thought was that they either posted a sign in the person's yard or on their door. That punishes everyone that lives there though. My uncle lived with my grandmother until she died and she would have been humiliated if something like that was in her yard, but it might have served a higher purpose

[JackBeck]

41. Men are just dawgs.

And as a gay man, let me just tell you how much they are...

I was just as perplexed about what went down tonight, which is why I wanted to have a discussion about this. We can all bring our own personal experiences into this, which heightens the conversation, but just because we know that the majority do not come out reformed, there are also those that do come out reformed. How do we know whether or not this dude came out reformed? We don't. But does that mean we should always treat him as a criminal?

[idgiehkt]

45. because there are studies that show the rate of recidivism on this

crime is astronomical. Social workers that I have known as friends (particularly a married couple I know that specialize in counseling sex offenders) use the word 'impossible' when they talk about the liklihood of rehabilitating these guys. Coming from people who work with them every day, that carries alot of weight with me. I believe they are not rehabilitatible due in part to the taboo in this culture against men admitting they've been the victims of rape or sexual abuse, and working through those feelings. Their only coping mechanism is repitition compulsion, to act out the behavior that was done to them, especially if it happened when they were pre-verbal or if they have compartmentalized it and have no conscious memory of it happening. I have more hope than my counselor friends do, actually, but at this point in the game people that work in that field consider sex offenders non-rehabilitatible, and those are the experts talking.

Here is the case of a woman a distant relative of mine raped and murdered on the Blue Ridge Parkway in 1994. This man was sexually abused as a child, and was later put in foster care and adopted by a wealthy family. They were observant enough to see his problems with adjustment and sexualized behavior when he was still a child and put him into counseling, so some attempt at treatment was given. Unfortunately it was not successful and this was the unfortunate result:

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/1998/012-96-1.htm

"On 31 October 1994, Karen Styles went jogging and did not return. On 25 November 1994, her body was found nude from the waist down and taped to a tree. The defendant became a suspect in the commission of the crime, and on 20 December 1994, members of the Sheriff's Department requested that the defendant come to the sheriff's office with them. At the sheriff's office, the defendant made inculpatory statements. Subsequently, the defendant was charged in Buncombe County with the first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, and first-degree rape of Karen Styles."

[rbnyc]

89. Seriously, did you see Minority Report?

What did you think of that society? Did you think that was okay?

[Pithlet]

29. I've not seen one iota of sympathy for child molesters in this thread.

Sorry to be so terse, but I hate when people pull that tactic, and I've already seen it a couple of times on DU just today. You don't have to agree with the viewpoint being expressed, but labeling people who disagree as sympathizers is ridiculous and unfounded. Some people, crazy as it sounds :sarcasm:, feel that everyone is entitled to certain constitutional rights. I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy being labeled as anti-bill of rights for your position, would you?

[idgiehkt]

31. I don't care what you 'label' me

I'm used to seeing this kind of intellectualization on DU about this stuff and it personally sickens me, but I know when I speak up in opposition to it I'm going to be hit with more of the same kind of masturbation. But I do it anyway because I don't see words and laws in my head when I talk about this; I see the faces of children, real kids, including me and my siblings, and that I grew up with who were in the circle of these perps and who were victimized by them. So label away, my friend. Some things are more important than intellectual arguments.

[rbnyc]

36. I think it's important to view law through...

...an intellectual rather than an emotional filter. It's the law that helps us to cope with horrible emotional situations in an even-handed way.

Laws need to be weighed intellectually, and measured objectively. They cannot be there to make us feel better, rather, to make us live better.

It's difficult when you have personal experience, especially traumatic experience in a given area to then be kind of scientifically objective. It may seem cold. It may make you sick. I can relate.

But that's all the more reason we need cold, objective laws.

I wish I could make this point with more eloquence. Help me someone.

[idgiehkt]

42. I understand you oppose it

I respect that you do but I disagree. What I have seen and experienced is people offending and offending and offending and never, ever getting caught or convicted. If you want to know why my uncle got convicted, it's because he was dating the mother of the 14 year old he was raping and he pissed her off and she took revenge on him by reporting that he was 'sleeping with' her daughter. He never would have been reported or convicted otherwise. I don't know that the percentage of false convictions is high enough to warrant over-turning a law that at least gives the community a heads up. My uncle had three different aliases that I know of. He rarely if ever worked but he knew enough about how to work the social services system that he survived just fine despite having a felony conviction, getting food stamps and aid with heating oil when he needed it, and preying on the sympathies of other people. A couple of years before he died, someone gave him a pick-up truck. Then they turned around and bought him tires. When he died he was living rent free in a trailer that a little old lady owned, helping her with yard work, etc. Sometimes he would just steal from my grandmother, just manipulation, over and over again. I don't know how many children a predator victimizes on average before they get caught, the ones that do get caught, but I've read that predators victimize an average of 150 children in their lifespan. It seems to me this law could cut that number down significantly.

[Pithlet]

39. I'm not labeling you.

I wouldn't assign you that label, I just think your assessment of people who disagree with you is terribly wrong and unfair. I was saying you probably wouldn't enjoy being unfairly labeled in the manner you do to others. It isn't your stance on the issue that bugs me. I'm sure you probably have been taken to task for your position, but that doesn't excuse your treatment of others.

[idgiehkt]

47. you are sure I've been 'taken to task for my position'?

Well, I never expected to get a laugh out of this thread, that's for sure. No, I've not been confronted. I have to scratch my head at this misplaced sympathy... the law is unfair to sex offenders, I am unfair to people with whom I disagree, but not one iota of sympathy for the actual victims of sex crimes. Just disturbing, and strange.

The point of my previous post, by the way, was that I don't particularly care what label I am assigned, by you or anyone else, for my point of view, since in this case, I've earned it, and I have the scars both internal and external to prove it.

[Pithlet]

50. I give up.

You're determined that I'm trying to label you, and you're determined to denigrate anyone who doesn't see this issue exactly as you do. There is no point in continuing further.

[idgiehkt]

59. no, see,

It's just that I don't care.

[mongo]

112. Yeah -- why "intellectualize" about it

when you can just execute these people, as suggested by you in your earlier post.

:sarcasm:

Some things are more important than intellectual arguments.

Like a mob mentality looking for bogey-men to hate and fear?

[rbnyc]

114. Also...

...isn't it the wing-nuts who are supposed to hate egg-heads?

[rbnyc]

33. Right--it's not a choice between children and sex offenders...

...it's a choice between just laws and knee-jerk crap laws.

:)

[SPKrazy]

52. As A Feminist Thinking Male

I think that is possible, I try to think about social issues from a feminist perspective as much as I can because I think that our patriarchal system has created a lot of problems, including our hypersexual environment that turns women, and girls into "objects" instead of humans. Objects are more easily hurt than people for most.

Don't think that happens, have you ever heard someone say "I'm gonna get some of that", instead of saying something about "her" or even "him", they say it as about an object

off my soapbox, I know that we all say things without thinking about it, I do think that society is irrationally obsessed with sex.

And I'm very guilty of it too. The lounge may be a good example of that in my case!

:shrug:

[Phillycat]

92. BRA-FUCKING-VO

I could not have said it better myself. I agree with every word you said. The people on this thread defending a sex offender's right to a peaceful life DO NOT GET IT.

[JackBeck]

94. I don't see ANYONE here defending the sex offender.

Since no one is able to give any numbers as far as recidivism, let me offer one. Even if only 1% of sex offenders were able to change their ways, who are we to say that this offender isn't part of that 1%?

[Phillycat]

95. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[JackBeck]

96. You obviously have not read the entire thread.

[Phillycat]

97. I have.

And you have no idea what you're talking about. Why on earth would you post a thread in defense of child molesters? What a disgusting position to take.

[JackBeck]

98. How am I defending a child molester?

And since you're such an expert, why don't you offer me some facts about recidivism to back up you vast knowledge on this subject? I guess as a liberal/progressive, I have more faith in people and their motivation to change after they've served their debt to society.

Why not hand out fliers outing people who are HIV+?

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

100. Then you would agree that most sex offenders are a family member.

Or known by the family. Which is why I don't need to know who this guy is.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rbnyc]

109. No doubt.

Boy, I should really get back to work, but this issue has really captivated me.

I have loads of sympathy for people's emotions in this thread...but they belong in a support group setting--not a policy discussion. It's so simple, is the law constitutional? Is it good for society to make exceptions to the constitution? Is the law effective? Is it good for society to pass ineffective laws because they have curb appeal?

Also, for those finding it difficult to control their emotions (which is SO understandable)--please stay in the text, stay in the test, stay in the text. Be specific, cite examples, try not to generalize.

And for those who are struggling to negotiate positions or get by an impasse--forget your position for a minute and look at your interests. We'll probably find most of our interests are in common. Then brainstorm a variety of positions and see which ones satisfy our interests.

(Betcha Meagan's Law satisfies very few.)

[rbnyc]

108. Can you please cite examples...

...of Child Molestors being defended in this thread? It's hard to answer an unspecified impression.

EDIT: spelling

[mongo]

113. Well gee -- are you in favor of executing them too?

Would any other position no matter how reasonable be "defending" child molesters?

[rbnyc]

107. What specifically do you mean?

Please try to stay in the text and argue specific points.

[rbnyc]

106. Agreed.

We cannot punish people because of what they might do, no matter how compelling the statistics. We need to back off our positions, look at the issues, and come up with alternative measure.

[rbnyc]

104. I'm defending YOUR right to a peaceful life...

what don't you get about that?

We must protect the rights of not only the weakest among us, but even the most monsterous, otherwise our own liberty is in jepardy.

If a person breaks the law, there should be just consequences, but our laws must be constitutional or else we are all in danger.

It's a really simple concept.

[rbnyc]

28. Exactly...

...If they are so danferous, why aren't they still in jail?

It IS about having someone to hate.

[Midlodemocrat]

82. In my mind, Megan's Law is a good thing.

Child predation is horrible, we all agree on that, but Megan's law was enacted after that child was murdered. Although the media does hype on these things and strives to make all of us parents as paranoid as possible, none of us wants to be in a position of saying 'If only'....

Pedophiles can't be cured. I firmly believe that...all my research has led me to believe that and nothing will change my mind. The recidivism rate is astronomical. There has to be a better way to protect the children.

I know where my kids are at all times....within reason of course because the 16yo is driving and the 14yo is often down at the courts playing basketball. But the 10yo? I know where she is and who she is with all the time. I'm one of the lucky ones. I know that. I also know in my own neighborhood there are kids who are alone after school until mom and dad get home in order to save some money on child care. I try to keep on eye on those kids because I feel as though I should, but I can't be that intrusive.

One of the children in my neighborhood who no longer lives here was molested for years by her older brother. I recognized the minute I met her that something was going on, but honestly, I suspected her father. I tried to let mom know, but it wasn't until dad caught brother doing what he did that anything happened.

They moved away. They're still in the neighborhood, but not my immediate one.

Given this boy's predatory behavior and the fact that I have two daughters, *I* would have moved had they chosen to stay.

[rbnyc]

85. I understand, why shouldn't we do everything we can?

It's true, we don't want parents to be thinking "if only..."

I'm not ready to close the book on rehabilitation. Though I understand why someone would.

Anyway, I think we've each made our points pretty well. We just don't agree as to whether the level of protection afforded by Meagan's law is worth the trade off when it comes to the law's implications for all of our rights.

I tend to equate Meagan's Law with the Patriot Act, and go back to that old quote..."Those who would trade freedom..."

Still, I feel this way as a survivor, but how would I feel if my son were ever to be harmed?

But that goes back to my point of protecting the law from our feelings.

Round and round. I mainly jusr wanted to say hi.

:hi:

[Redstone]

40. I dunno. Hard to think that you CAN "go too far" with those scumbuckets.

Redstone

[rbnyc]

110. But it doesn't end with the scumbuckets.

What goes for them, goes for us.

[cwydro]

43. I have to say

getting a visit from the cops right before bed and being "asked" to sign something would make me a little uncomfortable too. I would prefer the phone call method they have in Florida, I think...if I have to be alerted about this. I actually know about the website, which one can access to find out what creepoids live in the neighborhood; that works for me.

[JackBeck]

44. I'm not sticking up for these persons, but where does it stop?

Should we let everyone know who is HIV+, just in case there's an off-chance that we have unprotected sex with them and the possibility exists that HIV could be transmitted?

[Pithlet]

46. It's ridiculous.

People who are interested in this information know where to find it, and will go look for it. I don't see the point of wasting time and money to knock on everyone's doors. I'm sure they have better things to do.

[JackBeck]

48. Especially since my new home town is the birthplace of

the Bloods and the Crips.

Why not give us their addresses so we know not to walk by their houses?

[idgiehkt]

49. the only reason I can think of for the signature is that

law enforcement is protecting itself. Or setting up some kind of basis for legal charges to remove kids in the future if they find a family let their kids around a known sex offender. Let's not forget that not every family in America has a personal computer either, or knows that there is a website to go to, or that this information is available in their native tongue.

[cwydro]

79. Very true

re the computer etc....However, one wonders what would happen if one refused to sign the paper. Personally, I have no problem with the notification thing...rather not have cops come to my house however. That aside, I am one of those folks who believes those who commit crimes against children (and not a 18 yo with a 17yo) should be consigned to the hottest deepest regions of hell.

[mike_c]

51. what ever happened to the idea that you did your punishment...

...and then started over trying to make a life. This sort of thing simply extends the punishment indefinitely and makes it impossible to reintegrate back into society.

[idgiehkt]

53. reality intervened

At this point, sex offenders are considered non-rehabilitatible. Too many dead kids stacked up, I guess, and people got pissed off.

[Gormy Cuss]

55. The more draconian the punishment, the more dead kids will pile up.

I don't think that sexual predators can be rehabilitated and would prefer that we kept those offenders institutionalized. Forcing them to endure the scrutiny of neighbors won't prevent re-offending. It will only cause them to become more desperate about covering up their offenses. Megan Kanka was murdered by an offender who didn't want to be incarcerated again.

For that reason and that alone I'm against this sort of law.

[idgiehkt]

56. I don't see it as

"forcing them to endure the scrutiny of neighbors"

Interesting word choices...'forcing', 'endure'...

I see it as letting the neighbors know that right next door is a person who has an uncontrollable compulsion to destroy the lives of as many children as possible, and you might want to watch your kid, since for whatever reason the laws aren't strong enough to keep them in prison, or the jails are too full, or whatever.

[Gormy Cuss]

61. The words are accurate -- these laws create cornered rats.

That is my point. As for protecting your kids, parents should watch over them period. While they're watching the convicted predator down the block they may not be paying enough attention to the unconvicted sickos in their own families.

[idgiehkt]

63. it doesn't square out that way, though

the unconvicted sicko in my family didn't just prey on blood relatives but any child he could get his hands on, and the convicted sicko in my family, though he did prey on blood relatives, was convicted of the rape of someone he wasn't related to. Up until that point he wasn't convicted. These predators prey on children based on vulnerability and not based on whether or not they are related to them.

If the 'parents should watch their kids' thing worked, we would not be in this dilemna to begin with, so that point is moot.

[Gormy Cuss]

71. I have yet to see evidence that Megan's laws are effective at reducing predation.

The key flaw is that unconvicted predators are ignored in favor of the known one and unconvicted predators (family members, friends, neighbors, etc) still represent a great risk.

And no, this isn't an intellectual exercise for me. I grew up with far too many molesters and their victims to be impartial in this matter. My visceral response is that all child molesters should be tortured for years, but that isn't a solution.

[idgiehkt]

72. all forms of discussion about child sex offenders help raise awareness

so this law and others may be helping indirectly as well as directly. I don't think of unconvicted molestors as being 'ignored', it's just that the laws cannot be used to protect their potential victims until they are in the system. But the kind of activism that generated this law after a child was murdered by a convicted sex offender that lived across the street certainly has inspired a degree of discussion about these crimes and relevant issues. It's better now than it was back in the dark ages, when as my mother has said, you didn't talk about the abuse you suffered because you would be thought of as 'trash'.

I personally feel that most child predators were victims of predation as children who are caught up in repetition compulsion. I feel deep sympathy that they have to spend their lives destroying the lives of innocents because I know that in their hearts it is the last thing they want to do or ever intended to be. So I do not want to see them, or anyone, tortured. I think that lifelong incarceration or execution are probably the only answers, until we hit upon the key to being able to unlock this compulsion. For many of them, death would probably come as a great relief.

[Gormy Cuss]

78. It IS better than when it wasn't discussed.

It's certainly better to have the subject out in the open and have the vocal condemnation of these acts. I just don't believe that scarlet A's are an effective way to reduce child sexual abuse. Far better to arm all children with the knowledge of what's right and what's wrong and give them the support should they need to speak out against a molester. The elephant in the room is the abuse contained within families and the children who learn not to speak of it.

I have no sympathy for predators who were victims themselves. None. I do not care why they are molesters. The vast majority of those abused struggle with demons but don't become predators themselves. As I said, my visceral reaction is to punish them by torturing them so that they feel pain the same way their victims do. My more intellectual response is that neither hurting them nor ostracizing them while expecting them to integrate back into society is an appropriate solution.

[JackBeck]

58. And there we have it.

An angle I hadn't even thought of exploring.

Now I understand.

[mike_c]

57. NO incarceration in this country is really meant to rehabilitate....

It's meant to punish. Criminal rehabilitation is WAY down on the list of motives for criminal justice. I don't agree with that, but that's the reality.

So if the court says that the punishment for a crime-- whether theft or a sex offense-- is five years imprisonment, and the convict does his time, why should the thief be given an opportunity to begin life again without further punishment but the sex offender, who has also served his punishment under the law, not be given that same chance?

And note that the nature of the "sex offense" doesn't matter. The offender might have never had anything to do with children.

[idgiehkt]

60. well, I suppose if you believe that

there is no difference in the damage to society between stealing objects or money, and raping/murdering children, then I suppose from that perspective you might have a point. It's not my perspective, though.

[mike_c]

62. that is NOT what I said, and you dodged the issue nicely....

I said, once the convict has served his punishment as ordered under the law, why should the punishment be arbitrarily extended indefinitely? How much punishment is enough? The amount mandated by the courts, or an open ended living hell for the rest of his life, even if he is not guilty of further crimes, generally mandated by legislatures currying votes for being "tough on crime"?

[idgiehkt]

65. you see the law as punishment

I see it as society warning the community about a criminal that is not rehabilitatible that for whatever reason it cannot keep incarcerated.

I don't see it as these guys (and some women) having to endure an open-ended living hell, but thats because I've known a few actual perpetrators in my life. Generally speaking, they are not nice people. I've already state this in another post, but as I said above, they are not going to be able to be rehabbed and they victimize an average of 150 children in their lifetimes.

[JackBeck]

67. I agree.

How long is a person who has "served their debt to society" supposed to live out their sentence once they are not incarcerated anymore? And why do we not extend that to other violating crimes, such as murder and robbery? Or for that matter, one who infects another person with HIV?

[JackBeck]

64. That's not at all what is being expressed.

We all come from different frames of reference that can form our attitude toward certain subjects. While you've expressed your own, a few other DU-er's have expressed their own "perspectives". No one is attacking you, but it seems that you are being pretty aggro when it comes to this subject. Which we all understand, because we have heard your story and feel compassion as well. But please, try not to attack us. If you would look at most of the threads on this subject, most of us have been very sensitive to your story, while sharing our own.

[idgiehkt]

68. I don't see it as an attack

The post read as follows:
"punishment for a crime-- whether theft or a sex offense-- is five years imprisonment, and the convict does his time, why should the thief be given an opportunity to begin life again without further punishment but the sex offender, who has also served his punishment under the law, not be given that same chance"

the crime, and it's impact on society, is by no means the same. Not by a long shot, yet the postor of this comment gives them equal weight.

[rbnyc]

86. Good post.

I wish we would actually try to rehabilitate people before deciding that it's impossible.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

81. Then why aren't they still in jail? -nt

[JackBeck]

54. It's a second form of incarceration.

I thought our idea of the penal system was that we did our time to pay our debt to society. Apparently, that's not enough.

And on what scale do we judge crime and punishment? Should Abranoff and Safavian get fliers distributed around their neighborhoods for crimes committed that were on a more massive scale? And killed and harmed more children than a sex offender?

[Not_Giving_Up]

69. I've gotten postcards about high risk sex offenders

I show the picture to my kids and let them know to stay away. I know where my kids are at all times, but I don't know where the sex offender is.

[nini]

70. Parents should be aware of where their kids are at all times

and make sure they are supervised etc... This is whether or not there is a known predator in the area - it's the ones you don't know about that can be a bigger threat IMHO.

[JackBeck]

73. Very wise advice and observations.

I deal with this in my job when it comes to HIV/AIDS. In my workshops, people come up with all these crazy ways that they think HIV may be transmitted. One of my responses is that even though we can come up with all these ways that HIV can be transmitted (or our children to be molested) there have to be a whole list of things to occur in order for the event to transpire.

[MissMillie]

93. BINGO!

And yes, it's difficult because both parents work and yadda yadda, but still, this is key to keeping kids safe.

Children should be taught that all strangers are COMPLETELY off limits.

[JackBeck]

74. Another question: Should this guy be offered a job in our neighborhood?

Should he be accepted as a part of our community, or do you think he should be totally ostracized?

[JackBeck]

76. Should he be denied employment because of his past record?

I'd love to hear what you think.

[Midlodemocrat]

80. If said employment involves children, absolutely.

Pre-my-own kids, I was a practicing child and adolescent psychologist. I think Megan's Law is a good thing. I think informing people who is moving into their neighborhoods if they are a predator, (and I *firmly* believe all pedophiles are predators) is a good thing.

Of course, the problem arises with the 18yo who had sex with the 15yo girlfriend. That boy *isn't* a predator obviously, but his privacy is violated none the less.

In a perfect world, all parents would be able to afford child care so that their 8,9 yo's aren't left alone after school, but we all know that isn't the case. IMHO, these laws help to keep the most vulnerable safer; the child whose mom is working two jobs because dad has passed on, or the child who is watching a little brother or sister to save money. We had a circumstance similar to that in my neighborhood and I feel extremely fortunate that I was at home to keep an eye on those kids. It takes a village.

[JackBeck]

115. Obviously, I would agree with that.

A job where many children are present would be a terrible and irresponsible idea.

My original point, though, was that I feel since these fliers are being distributed throughout our neighborhood, my concern was whether or not this individual would be able to get a job in the community that didn't involve children. I live in an extremely economically challenged neighborhood and if the one leg up this individual may have left is employment. My concern is that now this person may not have any chance at employment now that these fliers are being distributed.

[billyskank]

83. It's so you can form a vigilante mob and run them out of town

[JackBeck]

123. Just like an episode of "The Simpsons".

Starring the preacher's wife.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

84. Depends on the offense, I guess ...

You didn't specify the crime (or I didn't see it).

If it involved children or coersion, then yes I think the cop is serving the public by warning the local residents. I'm not sure I understand the need for signatures.

If it was just a violation of an ordinance with consenting adults or alone (like a drunk skinny-dipping in the public library's fountain), then I'd probably throw the paper away.

Disclaimer: If you saw a drunk skinny-dipping in your public library's fountain, it wasn't me.

Regards.

[rbnyc]

88. LOVE your screen name.

I used to listen to Firesign Theater in my walkman about every waking hour when I was a teenager.

:hi:

[JackBeck]

129. It was a bit obscure.

On the flier that was given to me it says that he was convicted of "Criminal Sexual Contact, Aggravated Criminal Sexual Contact".

Since different states prosecute and jail for different things, and since I just recently moved here, I'm not quite sure what this means.

[Rabrrrrrr]

132. And thus it shows the bullshit - "Criminal Sexual Contact" could be anything

from the forced rape of a baby by a 39 year old male to a completely acceptable and consensual sexual encounter between an 18 year old girl and her 17 year old boyfriend, both seniors at their high school, or even possibly, both freshmen at their college, except that the boy's over-protective paranoid parents decided to press charges against the woman because maybe the parents are republican Christians and the woman is black. Or a Democrat.

[Lyric]

90. A friend of mine is on the sex offender registry here.

His crime? He dumped his ex-boyfriend. Said ex-boyfriend, out of spite, e-mailed him a rather disgusting photograph of a child being sexually exploited. My friend printed out the *entire e-mail* (along with header info, return address, etc.) and took it straight to the police.

They arrested HIM for "being in possession of child pornography". It didn't matter that someone else sent it to him against his will. It didn't matter that he immediately brought it to the police to report it. He was a gay man who had it in his possession when he walked into that police station, which made him automatically guilty. His own defense attorney told him that if he'd have been a straight woman who found that on her boyfriend's computer and brought it in, he'd have been called a hero. But because he was a gay man, they assumed his story was a lie. They completely ignored the obvious evidence that the e-mail came from someone else's IP number. He's currently appealing the conviction, and he'll probably win--but until the appeal is over, his name and photo will be right there on that list.

Is that justice? Four years of college, potentially wasted. Unless he wins his appeal, he'll never be able to get a job in his chosen field (English teacher). He'll be lucky to find work in a convenience store, with that hanging over his head.

The problem with Megan's Law is that it makes NO distinction between child molesters and people whose "sex crimes" were either technicalities (like my friend), non-pedophilia related, or were circumstance-specific and unlikely to be repeated (a random example would be a father who finds out that some teenager punk raped his daughter, and in a rage decides that "an eye for an eye" is a good idea, and commits the same crime on said teenage punk).

Either tailor the law so that it takes individual circumstances into consideration, or get rid of it completely. I'm a former victim of molestation and underage rape myself--and I *still* think the law is unconstitutional. The answer to child molestation is not Megan's Law. The answer is to vastly increase the prison sentence for people who commit sex crimes who also are highly likely to re-offend. If they're truly that dangerous, they shouldn't be out of prison period.

[MissMillie]

91. I Meagan's law is an abomination

I think it does nothing to stop child predators.

Most children are molested by family members, and chances are the parents already know where those family members live.

Also, considering there are plenty of predators out there who have yet to be caught or convicted, this law does nothing to address that.

What this law does is invades the privacy of individuals who have already paid their debt to society.

[Phillycat]

102. No. CHILD MOLESTATION is an abomination.

God, I am hiding this thread. My blood pressure is going to go through the roof. What is wrong with you people?

[rbnyc]

103. In case you haven't hidden it...

...please don't think that people opposed to Meagan's Law don't take the issue of child molestation seriously. This is not a debate about whether it's better to have Meagan's Law or child molestation. We all agree that child molestation is a horrific crime and critical issue. This debate is about whether or not Meagan's Law is constitutional, just, and/or effective.

I understand the difficulty some people have in absorbing this concept. As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, I have spent many, many years healing from what happened to me, and I am glad I can see this subject both objectively, and personally.

However, the car accident in which I lost a baby is still very recent for me, and I have not fully healed, and I find it impossible to discuss drunk driving, speeding, careless driving, sleepy driving, or almost anything to do with driving with a clear head. I have to hide driving threads.

Still, I can't stress enough the importance of having laws that are rational and constitutional and unyielding to emotional concerns. We need the law to guide us when our emotions would have us do things that would be harmful to society in the long term.

[MissMillie]

105. janesez--if you've not hidden this yet

Please understand that my issue w/ the law is that 1) it doesn't protect children (and I stated the reasons why it doesn't protect children), and 2) that it may violate the double-jeopardy clause of the Constitution.

I'm not pro-child molestation, AT ALL. And I think you know that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

126. Child molestation AND Meaghan's Law are BOTH Abominations

Oh My God! Rabrrrrrr is being rational and logical, able to hold two totally unrelated ideas, ideas which emotionally strained poeple think are the same thing, as true at the same time! Oh, my God!!

Equating disgust at Meaghan's Law as being the same thing as supporting child molestation is as goddamned stupid, ignorant, and fucked up as thinking that criticizing the president is being unpatriotic or that being pro-gay-marriage is being in favor of making Christianity illegal.

THEY'RE TOTALLY FUCKING UNRELATED.

[rbnyc]

134. I love you rabrrrrrr!

I keep visiting this thread to see if I have any new replies. I think a lot of people put me on ignore. But I was very glad to find you here. You have a way of putting things, and you are right on.

[Rabrrrrrr]

136. Thanks, rbync!

There is some serious insanity in here.

It gets difficult to tell the freepers from the progressives when they use the same methodology - "These people did something that deserves not a just punishment, but eternal humiliation, shame, and derision AND I don't give a shit about what the facts are, either, I know they're scum of the earth!!!!"

:eyes:

[JackBeck]

140. Not one person on here has supported child molesters.

But has only disagreed with an abhorrent rule of law.

[Rabrrrrrr]

143. No, they haven't.

Which is why I posted what I did.

Perhaps you meant to reply to the other person?

[JackBeck]

144. No, it was meant for you.

It was a post that agrees with you.

:toast:

[Beausoir]

111. The same thing happened to me. Cop showed up at my door. I appreciated it.

A violent rapist moved into our small rural neighborhood. He had picked an unknown woman, smashed her face, knocked her teeth out, dragged her into his car and raped her.

You are goddamn right I want to know if that kind of filth is driving around my neighborhood.

My son was invited to this guy's house for a birthday party. He was in jail at the time, but I had no idea that there was a history of vicious rape and incarceration over there. Thank GOD, I didn't let my kid attend.

And we, as a small neighborhood keep a watchful eye out, especially now. He gets NO welcome from us, nor does his pig of a girlfriend. Plain and simple...rapists are not wanted in MY backyard.

[Xithras]

116. I heard about another interesting one yesterday.

A friend of a friend was recently released from a three year stay in the Grey Bar Hotel and will be registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life. What did he do? He was at a family picnic when his niece sat down on his lap and started hopping up and down. After about 10 seconds, he picked her up, sat her down next to him, and told her she wasn't allowed to do that anymore. This part of the account is indisputable...one of his relatives had a video camera and the two can be seen on the side. What happened next was horrifying to contemplate.

The guy stood up, and the little girls dad noticed that he had a "lump". The six year old girl, bouncing in his lap, had partially aroused him. The dad freaked out, called the police, and the guy was arrested. At his trial the prosecutor ADMITTED that he hadn't invited the contact, and that he pulled the little girl off his lap once the contact became arousing, and the defense lawyer proved beyond any doubt that any prolonged moving contact with that body part can be arousing whether or not the man intends or wants it to be. Still, the prosecutor successfully convinced the jury that the facts didn't matter...she was six and he got a boner, so he's a dangerous pedophile. He was convicted of Lewd and Lascivious Acts with a Minor, spent a few years in jail, and is now a sex registered offender.

I was blown away by that.

[Ariana Celeste]

120. Jesus.

He's going to be branded for life for that too. People tend not to give a shit about the facts. They hear sex offender and automatically think 'dangerous pedophile'.

[rbnyc]

135. Amazing.

A perfect example of the kind of hysteria that surronds this issue.

People cannot handle the concept of sex and the concept of children existing on the same plane of reality. As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, this social attitude was very difficult for me, because it left me the choice of either de-sexualizing myself and playing the role of the total innocent, or refusing to desexualize myself and learning, against the grain of society, that a child can have sexual feelings and be innocent as well.

I did the latter, but it took decades to get it right.

[Xithras]

138. Part of the problem is the law itself.

I thought it was BS when he first told me about it, so I looked the law up: "Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years."

Because he was sexually aroused by physical contact with the body of a six year old, he was prosecuted. The whole trial apparently came down to the definition of "willfully". Because he allowed his neice to climb onto his lap, and she bounced for 10 whole seconds, the prosecutor argued that it was willful.

I couldn't tell you how many times I've had neices, nephews, and my own children on my lap, and yes, once or twice they've turned just right and I've had to pull them off my lap because their positions or actions were inappropriate. It's sad to think that this action, simply holding kids in your lap, is now being penalized. Apparently the judge thought so too, since he gave the guy the minimum sentence.

[Darth_Kitten]

117. Couldn't mentioning his address be setting him up for something?

I don't know......not defending the guy but there are nuts everywhere.

[JackBeck]

118. Well, the flier does state the following:

"Doing the following is inappropriate and may result in court action or prosecution being taken against you:

...4) Do not attempt to harm the offender or his.her property. Do not attempt to harass the offender or make unsolicited, unwanted contact.

5) Do not take any action against the offender;s family household members or employer that may in any way harm or harass a person or property."

I'm sure this will stop anyone from any future infractions. :eyes:

[CharmCity]

119. Another "as a mother" statement

Which is, I know where my kid is all the time. She won't be spending any time alone with random old men in my neighborhood or any neighborhood now or at any time.

That being said, I'm appalled at the thought of anybody knocking on my door and handing me a flier saying anything about anybody unless it has something to do with pizza delivery or an upcoming election.

[Ariana Celeste]

121. I got a message on my answering machine.

About a local offender. Said what the offender looked like, their name, age, etc., what they were charged with in legalese (as if we all know the legal terms or something) and where they live. This message was like 2 minutes long. It really disgusted me that they would do that.

I think Megan's Law is bullshit. The registry is bullshit. It does nothing but give people a false sense of security, and brand folks for life even though they've done their time. Get rid of the fucking registry, and give them longer sentences.

I am a victim of childhood sexual abuse. 3 different men. 2 of them family members, one of them a friend of the family. 1 of them also molested other little girls- my step sisters. People need to understand that if they have children, it is not just the scary strangers they need to worry about. Because most often it is family members, friends, babysitters, people you are close to, that are going to harm your children.

[JackBeck]

122. It is a false sense of security.

And your shared experience and reasoned reaction to this law is shared my many on this thread.

I apologize if this muddies the issue, but I feel the same way about people who are HIV+, since it's the line of work I find myself in. I would like to know if those who support Meagan's Law would support a similar initiative to list and distribute fliers throughout the neighborhood informing potential sexual partners the HIV status of your neighbors?

[Rabrrrrrr]

124. I think it's pure fucking bullshit. I think even having sex-offender registry

is pure fucking bullshit.

It's a total stain on our "justice" "system" that we allow this clearly unconstitutional bullshit, set up purely to alleviate the bullshit fears of fraidy-cat paranoid yuppie parents who want Father State to take care of their every fucking need.

When a person has done their punitive time in the slammer or community service or whatever the judge orders, THEY SHOULD BE FUCKING DONE, and allowed to go live in peace again, whatever their crime was.

"Sex Offender" registries are an abomination and pure bullshit.

[JackBeck]

125. A clear and forthright expression of my restrained indignation.

Since my character has come under attack the last few days, I would like to nominate this post as expressing how I've felt during those scurrilous accusations.

[sweetheart]

137. The entire visit --> police state

Now its normal for police calling around doors without appointments to get signatures.

Realizing he's just doing his job and all; but you had to talk to him, to sign something,
and if he smelled cannabis on your breath while you were doing that, he could take that
as probable cause to search your flat and throw you in prison.

Every uninvited visit from a cop is a prison shakedown, it is disturbing.

[JackBeck]

139. I actually got nervous when I peeked through my peephole.

Thoughts ran through my mind of whether or not there could be something objectionable in their view. I know they were doing what they were tasked to do, and most cops aren't corrupt or jerks, but it just was an overall weird experience.

[Pithlet]

141. It would make me nervous, too.

And I'm your average law abiding citizen. But even my first reaction would be to wonder if I were in trouble. Maybe there was a forgotten unpaid ticket or something. A co-worker of mine who was also a very close friend once had to leave because her husband had been picked up at their home by the police for not returning a rented video and she had to go bail him out. I'll never forget it.