|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:27 pm
Well sense we seem to be lacking in discussion at the moment, I'll be making a few threads like this one over the next few days to try and spur some activity out of this group.
Man Charged in Killings of Sex Offenders
So it starts with me sorting through Katrina articles looking for anything else that resembles world news when I stumble upon this. In case you haven't read, I'll give you the jist of it : A man, Michael A. Mullen, apparently after being upset by stories of a child abuse case in Idaho, in which Joseph E. Duncan III killed a family and abducted the two kids, killing one of them before being caught, Mullen sought out a group of three convicted sex offenders sharing a house (he pulled their names and location off the sheriff's website) and posing as an FBI agent, proceeded to kill two of the residents. Later, he called the police and confessed to the killings.
This is a rare case, the local police saying that they've never had another case quite like it, however what does it mean? Reports of hazing and abuse of the former abusers are abundant. Personally I'm not sure what to think in this case, the prevention of repeat offences is great, but is it effective enough to justify the embarrassment of others? Obviously stops need to be put in place, preventing sex offenders from working in schools and daycares and the like, but similar rules are in place for almost all people with a criminal record. That's why so many jobs where the employee is put in a position of trust require background checks. Do you agree with publicizing the names of sex offenders? All sex offenders? Do you think there's a better way? Is there really a way to tell which are more likely to become repeat offenders? How do you feel about the media's affect on law making policy? Should it be subverted? How? How public should the justice system be? Etc.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:55 am
hmm, touchy subject (no pun intended blaugh )
If we're going to extend the philosophy of the law as it stands (i.e. once a person has done the time they've done the time, there's no second punishments) it would make sense to only allow institutions that that kind of information would make sense having (the ***** list for the child care industry for example) to have access to these lists.
But the inner vigilante in me says that it's right that those people are put through the gauntlet for their crimes and that they should never be allowed into a situation where they could repeat them. So in that case I'd have to say keep the list public.
At what point does the freedom from persecution(?) that living in a constitutional society provides outweigh the freedom to protect ourselves and have access to information to do so? It's an endless cycle of rights-treading if you ask me.
A solution might be to have harsher punishments for sexual offenders, that is : instead of releasing them back into society where there would be a need for this info to be available, keep them locked up (or give them the death penalty if that's your flavour) 'til they're rehabilitated/unable to repeat offend.
How public should the justice system be? That depends on what you mean.
If you mean should the public should take an active role in punishing the offenders, then no, it shouldn't be at all. I personally feel a whole ton safer that noone can walk into my house and kill me/arrest because of some perceived crime, thankyouverymuch.
If you mean should the public be made aware of what the justice system is doing at all times, then yes, every decision that the courts make should be able to be scrutinised to it's full extent by the public (or at least, publicly appointed representatives). That way, you should cut down on abuses of the law system and corruption, etc.
The rest of your questions will have to wait I'm afraid, although I would truely love to take part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:49 am
I think that the public has a right to know about a sex-offender living in their neighborhood, but it's also the public's responsibility not to blow stuff out of porportion and to digging into other people's pasts.
The example you've provided us with is certainly an extreme. A very wrong extreme too. It is not the citizen's responsibility/duty/privelage to bring punishment for crimes under any circumstances. That's why all the anti-hero cop stories resolve with the bad-a** cop's decision not to kill the bad guy, but to have him arrested and tried in a court. (I'll save the whole 'reformation of the justice system' rant for another thread.)
However, the public should have the privelage of knowing what is happening in our justice system. Now, that doesn't mean the kind of paparazzi orgy that are celebrity trials, but they should be allowed to know the outcomes of a trial, whether or not the defendant was convicted, and if so, of what they were convicted of.
But any system has flaws, and ther'll always be some yahoo who thinks that the courts made the wrong decision or that the sentance wasn't harsh/lenient enough. That, unfortunatly, is not going to change until people get smart enough to know better than to take the law into their own hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 6:39 pm
I agree that the public should be informed about the judicial system. The Patriot Act, and anything like it, runs counter to everything I believe in. The red tape and public scrutiny is there for a reason, and like it or not, taking it away will only cause more problems.
As for the sex offender thing, I find myself torn. I would like to believe that anyone can be reformed. That even the most immoral son of a b***h can someday turn into a vague facsimile of a decent human being. But I'm also a cynic, and know that for every person that masters themselves and never reoffends, there are going to be ten more that go out and cause more pain.
I know that the US government currently has some sort of rating system based on likeliness to reoffend, and it seems that perhaps some of these people should be kept away from the general populous, if they are so likely to pose a danger. I think perhaps that is a better option.
Now that I think about it, I'm not sure what purpose the knowledge of a sex offenders place of residence could serve to a normal parent other than perhaps the peace of mind that they get from taking extra precautions with their kids in a specific area. I mean, when you get right down to it, if a sex offender decides he's going to go out and rape a child, knowing where he lives is not going to help all that much. Unless of course you plan on going to his house and putting a bullet in his forehead.
Yes, I've decided. I don't think the database being publicly available is a necessary thing. One should be kept. But not every overzealous parent should have access to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:28 pm
You know, apparently going around streaking puts you on the list of sex offenders. blaugh
This is a very difficult decision. If there is a sex offender in my neighborhood, I would like to know (there are actually two in my neighborhood). I want to be aware of these things so I can be more cautious. However, the sex offender also has his/her right to privacy, and that article proves it.
Here's my opinion: The decision to make it public where a sex offender lives should be based on the seriousness of the crime and the likelihood of a repeat offence. Currently, even if it was a minor crime, you are branded for life. If the crime is minor (like running around naked) and there doesn't seem to be a good chance of a repeat offense, then there is no reason to make that person's address public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:09 pm
I feel the same way as Aeridea becuase I have a friend that is dating someone that was 16 and he is 19 and people are labling him as a sex offender because that a type of rape beacuse she is underage((can't really spell the word so I am not even going to try)). But they are just in love y'know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 9:36 am
Lostboy986 I feel the same way as Aeridea becuase I have a friend that is dating someone that was 16 and he is 19 and people are labling him as a sex offender because that a type of rape beacuse she is underage((can't really spell the word so I am not even going to try)). But they are just in love y'know. You see, that's just stupid to label him a sex offender because of that. Three years is not that big of a difference, and besides, by sixteen she should be old enough to make her own decisions about dating. (I am however, a bit biased on that situation) However, there is a difference between people labelling you as a sex offender, and the government labelling you as a sex offender. With people, you still are discriminated against and ostracized, and perhaps some crazy person could still try to kill you for that. But with the government, you have nowhere to hide, and people who you don't even know can have access to your information, making this incident much easier (as this article proves). It also continues to affect you in the long run, like whenever you try to apply for a job. One streak run in the park is all it takes to ruin you for life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:09 pm
Vigilantes like Mullen will pop up across America if he is left unscathed, unpunished... but I wouldn't convict.
They hadn't reoffended, but that doesn't make what they'd done any less sick, or any less horrid. Better that they died, in my opinion.
But it seems that they are going to apply the law to its harshest extent on this offence. [Just as they failed to in the case of the sex offenders...]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:21 pm
Aeridea Lostboy986 I feel the same way as Aeridea becuase I have a friend that is dating someone that was 16 and he is 19 and people are labling him as a sex offender because that a type of rape beacuse she is underage((can't really spell the word so I am not even going to try)). But they are just in love y'know. You see, that's just stupid to label him a sex offender because of that. Three years is not that big of a difference, and besides, by sixteen she should be old enough to make her own decisions about dating. (I am however, a bit biased on that situation) However, there is a difference between people labelling you as a sex offender, and the government labelling you as a sex offender. With people, you still are discriminated against and ostracized, and perhaps some crazy person could still try to kill you for that. But with the government, you have nowhere to hide, and people who you don't even know can have access to your information, making this incident much easier (as this article proves). It also continues to affect you in the long run, like whenever you try to apply for a job. One streak run in the park is all it takes to ruin you for life. Just to add on to this, the legal issues of consensual statutory rape have been revised in many states in the last decade. Check your by-laws, but I know in both California and New Jersey, if the consensual minor is 16 years old or older, and the adult is 25 or under, it is not a crime. Of course, non-consensual rape is always a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
