-
Website
http://nashuatelegraph.com/ -
Original page
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/OPINION02/778518787 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
If I hear a politician say this one more time, I'm going to puke.
Sex offenders have families too and their children are forced to live in sub-standard conditions, go hungry because the parents can't find work due to the internet registry and housing restrictions.
The Human Rights Watch Report says, these "laws do more harm than good."
Go Home freestater.
who for a short wile put faith in government law makers to allow them to place their safety in the hands of government instead of just looking after ourselves and our own family's. [See "M" the move] Now the many sex offender who have made an effort for years to just get on with their lives in the face of unconscionable public humiliation need a class action suite against the federal government. Federal responsibility for what has happened in this country due to federal involvement. Any creation of isolation by any communication of media in any country is directly eroding or democracy. America is the land of the free. Americans are free to do good or bad. When America posted face on the internet the American federal government denied them the right to forgiveness and I do not think any American, government official or internet surfer today knows the day and the hour nor do they have that right to denie forgiveness.
Can you say slippery slope? I understand how it might feel like your saving a child. However, lets not forget that these "sex offenders" have paid their debt. Lets also not forget that if you urinate on the sidewalk...you are a sex offender.
This is the United States of America, registration is enough, beyond that its not freedom.
What about the children of these sex offenders? What does this do to their lives? Given that the vast majority of sex offenses occur in the home or are committed by a person close to the child, how does removing former offenders from community supports effectively prevent sexual abuse?
Banishment is banishment. When you banish the former offender and separate him or her from community involvement and supports, you are damaging an entire family. The children in these families are often the victims of the abuse and are further victimized by overzealous and ill-informed policies. Those children who weren't the victims BECOME victims of an unforgiving society who would rather continue to punish former offenders than reintegrate them into society.
What children are you protecting, anyway? Lets protect the real victims of these policies and not the phantom ones.
What, shouldn't the child molesters be vilified? Fine, YOU embrace them.
1. Where's the direct link to this finding? You've mentioned it a few times, but haven't cited it. I'd like to read this for myself.
2. Residency restrictions won't prevent this from happening
Nothing to do now that Ed Brown is in jail?
You are absolutely correct.
EVERYONE, please re-read this post, give it serious thought and consideration. You'll be better for it.
The News media and politicians who created this hysteria for votes and ratings will someday pay for this irresponsible delima this nation faces.
The fact of the matter is that there has never been any evidence that ANY of these sex offender laws have prevented even one case of child abuse. Child abuse is terrible and no one can defend it, but throwing out the consititional rights of any group of Americans is a far greater threat to our safety. Dont react, think!
"Talking point" information regarding the buffer zone from Laurie Peterson has been widely circulated. She did not disclose that she is a leader of Moral Outrage (offering advice on how to beat statutory rape laws), which set up a "media/legislative friendly" site CURSOR because, "age of consent position at Moral Outrage loses support with the mainstream". She didn't say she is a leader of NH Free Staters, (anarchist group devoted to vigilante justice, unfettered social freedom, legalizing marijuana, decriminalizing prostitution, eliminating government, laws, taxes and driver's licenses, and supporting open carry gun policy). The information and testimony offered "proof by verbosity," giving conclusions of a huge report, thin king no one would ever check. I did, and found her conclusions untrue. Alan Dershowitz calls this sending a blizzard when they want a snowball, because they will never find it. Are these the kinds of groups and tactics we want shaping Nashua's public policy?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/09/06/usdom168...
So folks, now you know, the FreeStaters are against you being able to even see if your neighbor was ever convicted of raping small children.
#1. I NEVER used my personal situation as a TALKING POINT or REASON for anyone not to support residency restriction laws. I PURPOSEFULLY left it out because it is irrelevant. These laws do not work, they are smokescreens. If you want to protect children, go after the schoolboard to teach sexual abuse prevention policies that are up to date and stand a better chance of working than the horrendously outdated 'stranger danger' policies.
#2 I am NOT the LEADER of Moral Outrage. I am a woman who was concerned about the plight of young men in America who were getting in trouble with a myriad of laws that we need LAWYERS to decipher for us. My husband was never taught the details of statutory rape laws when we were in highschool. He knew the age of consent was 16 and he ASKED the girl her age. She said 17.... why was he EVER charged with anything? That is an honest mistake of someones age through purposeful deception on the part of the minor. But that doesnt matter in most states. And they certainly did NOT teach us this in highschool. If they had, perhaps my husband would not be in the boat he is in. Again... spend your energy on education.. make
sure this doesnt happen to YOUR SON someday (assuming you are or will be a mother some day). Further, I volunteered to be the 'media contact' for moral outrage because of my knowledge of the issues and the laws of other states as well as my availability to answer calls that come in nationwide. I am listed as a site admin because I spend (or at least used to, as time has not allowed me to lately) a lot of time helping others (parents and teens alike) navigate the minefield of these laws and teenage sexuality.
#3. I am not a leader of the NH Free Staters movement. In fact, I am not even a member. I have never done anywork with these people on a professional level for the freestater movement. I have run across many of them in the legislative halls of Concord... other civic minded people who are doing their DEMOCRATIC duty to defend the constitution. Last time I checked, that was every citizens' duty and RIGHT as an American. I partnered with a gentleman I met (who happened to be a freestater) because he and I were both interested in the local politics of Manchester concering residency restrictions as we both reside here. No more, no less.
#3 Your information and testitmony (which I might add, you did LITTLE to respect the time limit that was placed on the public, talking endlessly) was based on emotion and fear. There were no facts in what you had to share. You said " lets just help these guys out a little... alcoholics shouldnt live near bars, and sex offenders shouldnt live near children"... the difference is alcoholics are allowed to live near bars (so why arent you pushing for that ordinance?) And not everyone requires the same amount of 'help' you believe they need. These issues are best left to professionals... not some woman who hurls vicious words of attack against others when her argument is not enough to get her way.
Funny how this ordinance was brought in your attempt to get the RSO's out of your neighborhood... not once were you honest about YOUR intent. More of the 'not in my backyard mentality'. You didnt want them on your street.
Finally, there are 2 web pages (neither of which I created by the way) not because one was 'losing support' as you would like to believe but because statutory rape laws and residency restrictions laws are separate issues. Frankly, I'm surprised you could interpret that as anything more than that... it seems rather obvious to me.
Your 'over-characterizations' and personal attacks speak for themselves.
As the good book says: "You who are without sin, cast the first stone".
#1. I NEVER used my personal situation as a TALKING POINT or REASON for anyone not to support residency restriction laws. I PURPOSEFULLY left it out because it is irrelevant. These laws do not work, they are smokescreens. If you want to protect children, go after the schoolboard to teach sexual abuse prevention policies that are up to date and stand a better chance of working than the horrendously outdated 'stranger danger' policies.
#2 I am NOT the LEADER of Moral Outrage. I am a woman who was concerned about the plight of young men in America who were getting in trouble with a myriad of laws that we need LAWYERS to decipher for us. My husband was never taught the details of statutory rape laws when we were in highschool. He knew the age of consent was 16 and he ASKED the girl her age. She said 17.... why was he EVER charged with anything? That is an honest mistake of someones age through purposeful deception on the part of the minor. But that doesnt matter in most states. And they certainly did NOT teach us this in highschool. If they had, perhaps my husband would not be in the boat he is in. Again... spend your energy on education.. make
sure this doesnt happen to YOUR SON someday (assuming you are or will be a mother some day). Further, I volunteered to be the 'media contact' for moral outrage because of my knowledge of the issues and the laws of other states as well as my availability to answer calls that come in nationwide. I am listed as a site admin because I spend (or at least used to, as time has not allowed me to lately) a lot of time helping others (parents and teens alike) navigate the minefield of these laws and teenage sexuality.
#3. I am not a leader of the NH Free Staters movement. In fact, I am not even a member. I have never done anywork with these people on a professional level for the freestater movement. I have run across many of them in the legislative halls of Concord... other civic minded people who are doing their DEMOCRATIC duty to defend the constitution. Last time I checked, that was every citizens' duty and RIGHT as an American. I partnered with a gentleman I met (who happened to be a freestater) because he and I were both interested in the local politics of Manchester concering residency restrictions as we both reside here. No more, no less.
#3 Your information and testitmony (which I might add, you did LITTLE to respect the time limit that was placed on the public, talking endlessly) was based on emotion and fear. There were no facts in what you had to share. You said " lets just help these guys out a little... alcoholics shouldnt live near bars, and sex offenders shouldnt live near children"... the difference is alcoholics are allowed to live near bars (so why arent you pushing for that ordinance?) And not everyone requires the same amount of 'help' you believe they need. These issues are best left to professionals... not some woman who hurls vicious words of attack against others when her argument is not enough to get her way.
Funny how this ordinance was brought in your attempt to get the RSO's out of your neighborhood... not once were you honest about YOUR intent. More of the 'not in my backyard mentality'. You didnt want them on your street.
Finally, there are 2 web pages (neither of which I created by the way) not because one was 'losing support' as you would like to believe but because statutory rape laws and residency restrictions laws are separate issues. Frankly, I'm surprised you could interpret that as anything more than that... it seems rather obvious to me.
Your 'over-characterizations' and personal attacks speak for themselves.
As the good book says: "You who are without sin, cast the first stone".
#1. I NEVER used my personal situation as a TALKING POINT or REASON for anyone not to support residency restriction laws. I PURPOSEFULLY left it out because it is irrelevant. These laws do not work, they are smokescreens. If you want to protect children, go after the schoolboard to teach sexual abuse prevention policies that are up to date and stand a better chance of working than the horrendously outdated 'stranger danger' policies.
#2 I am NOT the LEADER of Moral Outrage. I am a woman who was concerned about the plight of young men in America who were getting in trouble with a myriad of laws that we need LAWYERS to decipher for us. My husband was never taught the details of statutory rape laws when we were in highschool. He knew the age of consent was 16 and he ASKED the girl her age. She said 17.... why was he EVER charged with anything? That is an honest mistake of someones age through purposeful deception on the part of the minor. But that doesnt matter in most states. And they certainly did NOT teach us this in highschool. If they had, perhaps my husband would not be in the boat he is in. Again... spend your energy on education.. make
sure this doesnt happen to YOUR SON someday (assuming you are or will be a mother some day). Further, I volunteered to be the 'media contact' for moral outrage because of my knowledge of the issues and the laws of other states as well as my availability to answer calls that come in nationwide. I am listed as a site admin because I spend (or at least used to, as time has not allowed me to lately) a lot of time helping others (parents and teens alike) navigate the minefield of these laws and teenage sexuality.
#3. I am not a leader of the NH Free Staters movement. In fact, I am not even a member. I have never done anywork with these people on a professional level for the freestater movement. I have run across many of them in the legislative halls of Concord... other civic minded people who are doing their DEMOCRATIC duty to defend the constitution. Last time I checked, that was every citizens' duty and RIGHT as an American. I partnered with a gentleman I met (who happened to be a freestater) because he and I were both interested in the local politics of Manchester concering residency restrictions as we both reside here. No more, no less.
#3 Your information and testitmony (which I might add, you did LITTLE to respect the time limit that was placed on the public, talking endlessly) was based on emotion and fear. There were no facts in what you had to share. You said " lets just help these guys out a little... alcoholics shouldnt live near bars, and sex offenders shouldnt live near children"... the difference is alcoholics are allowed to live near bars (so why arent you pushing for that ordinance?) And not everyone requires the same amount of 'help' you believe they need. These issues are best left to professionals... not some woman who hurls vicious words of attack against others when her argument is not enough to get her way.
Funny how this ordinance was brought in your attempt to get the RSO's out of your neighborhood... not once were you honest about YOUR intent. More of the 'not in my backyard mentality'. You didnt want them on your street.
Finally, there are 2 web pages (neither of which I created by the way) not because one was 'losing support' as you would like to believe but because statutory rape laws and residency restrictions laws are separate issues. Frankly, I'm surprised you could interpret that as anything more than that... it seems rather obvious to me.
Your 'over-characterizations' and personal attacks speak for themselves.
As the good book says: "You who are without sin, cast the first stone".
What about the guy that won the lottery but had to give it back. go fight for his rights.
They raped kids, the fed court upheld that the right to live where you chose isn't in the constitution.
2007-08-16T21:10:03 (J’raxis 270145)
There are weekly meetings Tuesday at 19:00, called Taproom Tuesdays. A load of freestaters always show up—two weeks ago we topped thirty people. It’s usually pretty busy but we can set up at a table away from the main crowd; we’ve done this a couple times for the Manchester Free Press meetings already.
We should definitely work on narrowing down whatever sex-offender facts you’ve collected to the best ones that fit this particular issue. As you can probably see from the comments in this thread, my own opposition position on sex offenses is pretty wide-ranging: everything from opposing this coming law, to the existence of the public registries, to the age of consent itself—but we need to remember to stay focused on this one issue in order to tackle it most effectively. I especially think we’d just scare away a lot of support I get into my AoC arguments with people.
The meeting at last night’s Taproom Tuesday went well: In attendance were LaurieP, RattyDog, and myself, with Ron Helwig, dalebert and error/Beavis drifting in at times. Laurie, who is a true super-activist on this topic, had a very interesting slide show presentation on sex offenders that was recently shown at the state house in Concord—how recidivism rates are extremely low, how reports of sex offenses have been going down over the past decade, and so on. We’ll be working more of this data into our handouts before we have anything to give out.
The CURSOR website should be up by the end of the week. PDFs of our handouts will be available, as will much of the data we’ve collected, and there’ll be a news section documenting other examples of the injustices committed against accused sex offenders. There are other ideas we’re kicking around, too.
Do you REALLY want Free Staters setting our public policy?
She also runs Moral Outrage, "yes means yes," a group to help folks around the statutory rape laws. www.moraloutrage.net They say "About Moral Outrage
Moral Outrage is dedicated to the reform of statutory rape laws. As they currently exist, statutory rape laws undermine the rights of both minors and adults while costing the taxpayer thousands of dollars every year in the prosecution of senseless sex crimes. We hope to change that. "
These affliations were never mentioned in her tearful testimony. She changed her tune once the statutory was eliminated from the law. Now we know why.
Yes means yes is not my phrase.. it was something the site founder put there to, as he put it "piss people like that off"... something he clearly has achieved with you. Personally, I dont agree with that statement being on the site, though, if someone says yes,... are you to interpret that differently, believing everyone is an adult or of legal age? But the, you'd know that too, if you really knew what you were talking about.
Yes means yes is not my phrase.. it was something the site founder put there to, as he put it "piss people like that off"... something he clearly has achieved with you. Personally, I dont agree with that statement being on the site, though, if someone says yes,... are you to interpret that differently, believing everyone is an adult or of legal age? But the, you'd know that too, if you really knew what you were talking about.
Yes means yes is not my phrase.. it was something the site founder put there to, as he put it "piss people like that off"... something he clearly has achieved with you. Personally, I dont agree with that statement being on the site, though, if someone says yes,... are you to interpret that differently, believing everyone is an adult or of legal age? But the, you'd know that too, if you really knew what you were talking about.
She offered the Human Rights Watch (HRW) Group report, saying HRW is opposed. Untrue, they recommend buffer zones for violently sexual offenses and sexual offenses against children only. Of 147 pages, residency restrictions take two paragraphs. The rest is dedicated to getting registry required for "appropriate" offenses, also violent sexual offenses and sexual offenses against children only, irrelevant to our legislation. HRW says consult Center for Sex Offenders Management, US Department of Justice (CSOM) for crafting such zones. We did.
Here is Dr. DavidSon's speech on the capital steps in Ohio
Ohio Rally 3 Parts
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBryvIxQcJc&feat...
Part2 Starts out distorted but clears up in about 15 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xd7lJCepRU&feat...
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xd7lJCepRU&feat...
You Tube about Dr. DavidSon's son, Timothy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrvOl99HDAA&feat...
Decide for yourself.
Link to story http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/266576...
Still the same old crap. Deny 98% internet access who don't go on to repeat their crime and ignore the real problems.
"Besides the obvious—calling and faxing these schmucks, and voting against them in the next elections—what can we do about this? There are an awful lot of freestaters in Manchester. If we could get some kind of organized campaign going to resist this insanity before it happens, it would probably be a lot more effective than just one or two people calling them up on their own.
"Well, that’s fine, and certainly permissible in a free market. But I consider most sex offenses to be trumped-up nonsense—they shouldn’t be considered “crimes” in the first place—and so I wouldn’t do that. To each his own, right?"
http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=4.0
What did I DO TO YOU? This is really unbelievable.
Here's something I dont disclose... but you want it? You got it. I dont need 'crying' which I never did at a legislative hearing. I've got personal experience.
Molested as a child? Been there. 16 yr old neighbor boy... I was 5. How's that for getting your sick rocks off lady? You think I'm biased? You bet I am. He was someone I KNEW.
Victim of statutory rape? Been there... go dig up the Nashua Police Reports on it... dated 1995. Since you love fact finding... this should be too hard for you. You claim to know everything else I do... so go learn more about me.
Have a registered sex offender in the family? Oh my goodness folks.. she's 3 for 3. Biased? Yes. Relevant? Yes. Experienced (unfortunately) in all of these dynamics? Yes. These are not issues that are solved by mouthing off, ranting or coming up with surface level reactions. These issues are so deep and intertwined that most of the public cannot wrap their poor heads around them.
You really are something............ you really are. None of the stuff that you have cut and posted here are words that are mine. These are free public forums and they see all kinds of posters (just like this forum does). You are purposefully and maliciously trying to attack me in this forum and attribute statements to me that YOU KNOW are not mine. And YOU are the kind of policy shaper Nashua should have? YOU who purposefully twist words, use intentional deceit to manipulate the emotions of the public (albeit, you are very gifted at your craft) ? In fact, I doubt that you could find one thing that you could post that actually belongs to me, that I said, that would be upsetting to most people.
"Re: Age Of Consent [NAMBLA]
Here's the way I see it...instead of setting a one-size-fits-all rule, why not actually start testing the children's maturity levels in school around when puberty starts? This would more accurately judge at what age the child is knowledgable and responsible enough to make an informed decision about sex. The child's test scores (taken every year from around 10) would determine if they A) can't consent, B) can consent with other children going to the same school, or C) can consent with whoever they please.
Stay tuned for 20/20. Also, the SUMMERATION of the HRW Report is that "these laws do more harm than good". That is very well debt with in the context of the report"
Residency Laws need to be declared unconstitutional with perhaps the exception of the few who are proven to be a threat. Registration should be put into the hands of police only. There are many police saying the same thing. Many law makers are now re-evaluating their laws seeing the harmful effect they have on society and the offender.
In 2006, it was pretty much, 'round em up and hang em high' 2007, we see the tide turning and people are waking up and demanding effective laws based on constitutional principles. 2008, there will be, in my opinion a major swing toward getting away from emotional hype toward a more balanced system.
http://annabelleigh.net/messages/422958.htm
Then there was this...
http://www.clogo.org/main.php a clearing house for creating anti-registry anti-legislative pedophile propaganda where all the circulated info is quoted also, mmmmm strange coincidence?
We can't have it both ways...
Posted by Joey Bishop on Friday, December 14 2007 at 05:32:17am
In reply to Activism idea: printable pamphlets posted by Silence Dogood on Thursday, December 13 2007 at 10:31:03am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, for example, the myth that “most instances of child sexual abuse are committed by pedophiles,” for instance, would be countered by research showing that ≈90% of these crimes are committed by those without a sexual preference for children, and that most abuse takes place in the home. The myth that pedophilia is rare would be countered by studies indicating that a substantial percentage of the population is at least occasionally attracted to children
From the DOJ. Center for Sex Offender Management.
This law isn't about first time offenders. Please know that we are on a national cross hairs of pro pedophile organizations, they have our meetings and votes on calendar, and have been informed how to post here. yes, we all know that sex offenders against kids are the lowest reoffenders. NOT.
Do you want convicted rapists of small children moving in next to your schools and parks? Ones that never lived here, so they aren't coming for the family support. This law is another layer of protection.
We aren't including the ones that aren't a current threat. Only the people convicted of raping children under the age of 13.
Jill Evans, in Nashua, googled, nothing comes up. are you with one of the other groups posting here?
they are
NH Freestaters
Moral Outrage
ACLU
http://annabelleigh.net/ how to beat the pedophia laws, and how to find victims girl oriented
http://www.boychat.org/ how to beat the pedophilia laws, and how to find victims, boy oriented
http://www.oncefallen.com/index.html a convicted pedophile, uniting others under guise of hidden identity.
http://www.clogo.org/main.php a clearing house for creating anti-registry anti-legislative pedophile propaganda
papertrail http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=4.0 brought me here….
http://cursor.eprci.com/events/manchester/#meet...
I read the handouts, and the information on them is incorrect. But hey, who would look them up in today's busy world? Um, me!
Although sex offenders may commit other types of offenses, other types of offenders rarely commit sex offenses (Bonta and Hanson, 1995; Hanson, Steffy, and Gauthier, 1995). If this is the case, then a different set of factors may be associated with the recidivism of sex offenders than for the general offender population. This statement is reinforced by the finding that many persistent sex offenders receive low risk scores on instruments designed to predict recidivism among the general offender population (Bonta and Hanson, 1995).
Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years). 43% happen in the first 4 years.
A town hall meeting will be held in a secret location to discuss the proposed sex offender legislation.
All are encouraged to attend (except for sex offenders and their families, members of law enforcement, mental health experts who specialize in sex offenders, certain victim advocacy groups, Constitutional scholars, statisticians, judges, and rational thinkers- Anyone belonging to one of these pedophile advocacy groups will be escorted from the building.)
We encourage all to participate (There is no other way to protect your children from perverts). If you are a member of a group that has successfully harrassed a sex offender into moving from his place of residence, your expert advice is welcome. Church groups are especially encouraged to attend, unless the group believes in redemption, in which case it would be better if they just stayed home. (Handle your snakes, drink your Kool-aid, or whatever you weirdos do...)
Rules for the meeting:
1. As the Constitution (the so-called "law of the land") is an antiquated, useless historical relic, anyone mentioning it will be asked to leave.
2. Questions about any "youthful indiscretions" on the part of the authors of the new Bill will NOT be tolerated. Everyone makes mistakes.
3. No hate speech allowed (except for when talking about the disgusting, monstrous, inhuman, waste of air known as a sex offender).
4. The Freedom of the Press will be respected at all times. We know we can count on the Press to do their utmost to report the truth, as always.
5. No gum chewing.
6. Any dissenting opinions must be presented in writing one week before the meeting. No time will be allotted for argument. The opinions will be added to the record (in the footnotes) no later than three months after the Bill is passed.
7. Children and teenagers are welcome, unless they are the child, brother, sister, etc. of a sex offender. In which case they will be promptly removed from their home into protective custody.
8. Anyone who dares to disagree with opinions reached during the meeting will be officially designated "pedophile activists" and have their names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and social-security numbers distributed to any number of different vigilan-... Concerned Citizens' groups to post on the world-wide-web. This is , indeed, worse than the registration for actual sex offenders, but is necessary to protect the children.
9. It has become abundantly clear and widely accepted that sex offenders recidivate less often than other criminals. It is also true that registration laws put children in more danger than they were in before the new laws. It is equally true that we get elected not for keeping your children safe, but by making you FEEL safer. Therefore, the new Bill will continue in that proud tradition. We are not woriied in the least that you will discover our ruse... The attention span of the average American dictates that you won't read this far, anyway. By the way, we also included a substantial raise in the Bill. Not for law enforcement, for US!.. HA!
Link http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
So does this new law really account for that?
I have to admit though, this still sounds like the city just wants to push the issue away by making the offenders some other town's problem instead. That doesn't really solve anything, just sweeps it under the rug. That and if someone is hellbent on abusing a child in the city, they'll just drive in and do so.
13 year old both sex offender and victim.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650
6 year old sex offender.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650http://www....
Knowing that the term “sex offender” gets slapped on 13 year-old boys that grope 13 year-old girls renders the term all but meaningless. What does the term tell us, what does it communicate, if it lumps a serial rapist in with this kid?
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/01/feeling_sor...
The list goes on and on and these are just the ones reported. Most news people refuse to do so or the families are terrified of the reprecustions from people like you.
http://www.moraloutrage.net/polls/index.php?qid...
Ethical or Criminal?
Authored by: LaurieP on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 02:40 PM CDT
I feel this poll deserves a comment, with nearly 1 in 5 people voting yes to 'teachers who sleep with 18 year old students should be prosecuted as criminals'.
Is it immoral, unethical and wrong? YES. Should there be sanctions and punishment for this behavior? YES. Should those sanctions be imposed by our criminal justice system? NO.
These situations are best addressed by the School Administration and State Certification Boards. A teacher who gets involved with a student while they are attending the same school where the teacher teaches, should be subject to dismissal and possible removal of his/her teaching license with regard to sleeping with ADULT (hence the age of 18) students. Our courts are clogged up enough with real crimes that have measurable and obvious damages and should not be bogged down with the moral issues of society, like whether or not a teacher should date an adult student. Anyone voting yes to continue to make this a crime should feel free to express why we should deal with this moral issue in our criminal courts... I'd love to hear your reasoning!
Recidivism
* Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
* The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
* Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
* Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
* Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.
Sex offenders
* On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
* The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.
* An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.
* Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
* Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.
Child victimizers
* Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.
* Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, 60% had been in prison for molesting a child 13 years old or younger.
* Offenders who had victimized a child were on average 5 years older than the violent offenders who had committed their crimes against adults. Nearly 25% of child victimizers were age 40 or older, but about 10% of the inmates with adult victims fell in that age range.
Oh, and I am so sick of all the ACLU bashing. I know Bill O'rely tells you they're a bunch of evil liberals and to hate them, but you ever stop to think about what they do for a moment. The reason they end up defending the scum of the earth a lot of the time is because the scum are always the first to have their rights striped away. It's a typical reaction to want to see racists and pro-pedophiles silenced, but in doing so you create a precedent of taking rights away from one group. And it grows from there. Soon you're silencing "hate speech", which soon grows to include a lot of religious preaching that is seen as "hateful" to other faiths. Maybe one day it'll include banning speech that is "hateful" to a political view, and so on, and so on, until one day it effects you in some way.
Same can be said about Sex Offender laws. No one wants to stand up for a pervert's rights. So they strip them of more in more in the name of "protection" and "punishment for the sick things they did." Then one day they decide the same set of laws should apply to people who committed another kind of crime, then another, and maybe one day people just suspected of a crime. See also the Patriot act and other post 9/11 hysteria.
My point is it's a GOOD thing that there is a group that despite all the crap that freedom hating wingnuts heap upon them, there's a group willing to put up with it and stop the erosion of civil rights where it always begins. And if you have a problem with that maybe it's time to re-evaluate what kind of government and society you claim to support.
Time for change is here now, I hope we all are voting next week!
That is my problem, because I live here. I see the level 3 out at the door step at 8 watching the kids walk by with the smile on the face. Grinning in the registry photos.
I read the planning sessions, then followed everyones listed groups back to the other groups they run, and saw about setting up cursor to be media and legislator friendly so they don't see the age of consent is the true focus.
I see they think pedophilia is like homosexuality, and idea before (And long after according to them) their time. Yes means Yes?
This is fair ordinance, balancing the needs to rehabilitation of people that have support systems, but keep new folks moving in who raped little kids from setting themselves up for relapse.
I know I won't change your mind, or any freestater, but just hoping some reading this in the city who do live here won't get the message all these imported pedophiles are putting out as fact. They are not.
A fifteen year old study? Please. The laws weren't even in place, how could they study them.
Black, M.S. & Parks, E. (2001)
Centers for Sex Offender Management (2001).
Corrigan, R. (2006).
Fitch, K. (2007)
Harris, A.J.R. & Hanson, R.K. (2004).
Levenson,J.S., Brannon, Y.N., Fortney, T. & Baker, J. (2007).
Levenson, J.S. & Cotter, L.P. (2005)
Norman-Eady, S. (2007).
Pawson, R. (2002).
Schram, D.D. & Milloy, C.D. (1995
State of New York Department of Corrections (2001).
Tewksbury, R. & Lees, M.B. (2006).
United States Department of Justice (2001).
Valentine, D. & Huebner, B. (2006).
Wakefield, H. (2006).
Walker, J.T. Maddan, S., Vasquez, B.E., VanHouten, A.C., & Ervin-McLarty, G. (2005).
There's a word for your way of dismissing someone by calling them a "free stater." It's an ad homineum argument. That's when someone runs out of logical things to say about an argument, so they say something negative about a person's character.
When you is, it displays to everyone that you've run out of logic, and you have to result to namecalling like a 5 year old.
I'm not even going to get into arguing points here, primarily because I'm not from Nashua (from California) and don't know the ordinance. But I saw the logic that Mr. Tollner and his fellow assemblymen used to carefully craft this law, in a previous article and it seems to based on the same kind of spurious evidence that other legislators have used.
I've also read the Human Rights Watch paper that you dismiss, and you seem to be glossing over many things when you talk about how they support buffer zones. They clearly say (on page 23) that there should be NO residency restrictions applied to entire classes of SO's across the board. A few pager earlier, they talk about how registration should be limited to offenders that at are high risk to reoffend AS DETERMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE basis using a number of factors, not just the crime committed.
And so you know (because I wouldn't want you to be worried that I'm one of those crazy "free staters"), I am not affiliated with any organization but myself. I post because I am friends with a child sex offender who is one of the most decent people I know, and I'm sick and tired of people like yourself lumping everyone in this category together as predators. My friend is a good man who made the mistake of taking a teenager's advances as something he should believe in. It was a mistake, and he admits it. But he no more "preyed" on this girl, or is a pedophile, than you are.
The law's "distinctions" make very little distinction between coersion and not, and people like yourselves that want to assume that everyone who committed an child sexual offense is a pedophile terrify me. A pedophile is someone who is habitually attracted to pre-adolescent children. It is a medical definition, and it is being thrown around like people know what it means. And people are being persecuted because of it.
And just so you know, as well, I am the aunt of a 6 year old who was molested as well, so I'm not immune to the fears that you have. I've just seen enough to know that punishing people in such widely different cases as if they committed the same kind of crime isn't justice.