What Makes A Sex Offender?

[PrezLeefun]

What makes a Sex Offender?

What makes them sick? Are they sick or just evil?

[Wolfcounsel]

Personally I don't care what makes a sex offender. It can be the dumbest mentally-retarded neanderthal, and if he or she hurts an innocent person, especially a child, place a bullet in the medulla oblongata, and that's the end of future assaults for the creep.

[MSGT]

I believe it is a person overtaken with evil {I have known about 300 sex offenders}. Having said that, Wolf nailed it, kill em. They will do it again. I am saying this concerning the recent child cases. Not some of the others. The term sex offender covers with a broad brush.

[Venus de Smilo]

What makes a Sex Offender?

What makes them sick? Are they sick or just evil?

Evil makes them sick. Shoot the evil, bury the sick.

[Venus de Smilo]

I believe it is a person overtaken with evil {I have known about 300 sex offenders}. Having said that, Wolf nailed it, kill em. They will do it again. I am saying this concerning the recent child cases. Not some of the others. The term sex offender covers with a broad brush.

If you don't kill a first-offender, you gotta keep them locked up forever, and that's just not guaranteed, given the vagaries of judges, legislators and political administrators. The reason for that is that if you let them out after serving a long sentence, they will definitely kill their next victim in order to avoid identification. They want to stay out of prison so they can continue to offend. It doesn't matter if their first offense was benign by comparison to the ones we've experienced lately because these recent ones were relatively benign first-offenders at one time, too, and were released back into society to commit the ultimate atrocities on children. If you knew what was done to Samantha Runion, you'd understand that. Besides that, sexual predation has the highest rate of fast escalation of any crime and the highest rate of recidivism.

With all the talk about national security, the value of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and so on, I am stunned by two things: 1). The unwillingness to protect kids from these predators; and 2). The unwillingness to secure the borders.

[TheRealLobo]

Evil makes them sick. Shoot the evil, bury the sick.

Ooooh, I LIKE this....


Should I know you?

[Warlady]

I believe it is a person overtaken with evil {I have known about 300 sex offenders}. Having said that, Wolf nailed it, kill em. They will do it again. I am saying this concerning the recent child cases. Not some of the others. The term sex offender covers with a broad brush.

I am dying to know how you have known about 300 sex offenders. I believe they are sick and evil. They are not rehabable. The recitivism rate is almost 100%. Death penalty is the only way to ensure they won't rape and kill again.

[MSGT]

I am dying to know how you have known about 300 sex offenders. I believe they are sick and evil. They are not rehabable. The recitivism rate is almost 100%. Death penalty is the only way to ensure they won't rape and kill again.

I worked in the dept of corrections for 13 yrs. We all agree on the punishment. Like I said, sex offenders are painted with a broad brush. I knew one kid, he was 18 had consensual sex with a 16 yr old. When the parents pushed it he got 5 yrs in prison. When he got out, he and the girl got back together. Now, I am not condoning this behavior, but clearly he did not deserve death. On top of that you have a mountain of false rape charges and all these are considered sex offenders if convicted

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I tend to agree with MSGT. We must define what "sexual predator" means, what is "acceptable", "correctable with rehabilitation," and what is beyond "acceptable and correctable with rehabilitation."

IMHO, this would be the breakdown:

Child (sexual) predators -
A) - NOT acceptable EVER (even in the case of Mary Kay Latourneux (sp?) who, after punishment and incarceration, married her victim.)
B) - NOT correctable with rehabilitation. I do not believe children are EVER safe in a world where child (sexual) predators are allowed to roam free. There is NEVER a guarantee that they will not do again what once they have done.
C) - So it is NOT acceptable and NOT correctable with rehabilitation, therefore deserves the death penalty.

Violent Sexual predators/Rapists who kill, maim, torture, or seriously injur their victims -
A) - NOT acceptable EVER
B) - NOT correctable with rehabilitation - once they kill or do vicious violent harm, they should forfeit all rights to even CONSIDER rehabilitation.
C) So it is NOT acceptable and NOT correctable with rehabilitation, therefore deserves the death penalty

Sexual predators/Rapists who do not kill, maim, torture, or seriously injur their victims -
Violent Sexual predators/Rapists who kill their victims -
A) - NOT acceptable EVER
B) - Correction by rehabilitation is undeterminable.
C) - So, NOT acceptable EVER, and correction by rehabilitation is underterminable, therefore they deserve to remain locked up for the remainder of their natural life, receiving no life extending medical treatment, and they should be forced to do something which would provide restitution to the victim(s) and the state for their crimes.

Sexual predators such as case listed by MSGT (18 year old has consensual sex with 16 year old and parents press charges) -
A) - NOT acceptable, but understandable
B) - Correction by rehabilitation IS possible, as the only point in question was age, not consent
C) - So, it is NOT acceptable but understandable, and correctable by rehabilitation, so if charges are pressed, sentences should be served, long term parole should be issued, and careful, spot monitoring should be maintained.

FALSE allegations of sexual preditation - Anyone who claims false allegations against an innocent with the charges as a sexual predator should be punished themselves.

I have probably generalized this too much, but that's a good start, in my humble opinion.

[Nyahsee?]

I tend to agree with MSGT. We must define what "sexual predator" means, what is "acceptable", "correctable with rehabilitation," and what is beyond "acceptable and correctable with rehabilitation."

IMHO, this would be the breakdown:

I agree with pretty much all of what you have to say about the subject save a few points.

Sexual predators such as case listed by MSGT (18 year old has consensual sex with 16 year old and parents press charges) -
A) - NOT acceptable, but understandable
B) - Correction by rehabilitation IS possible, as the only point in question was age, not consent
C) - So, it is NOT acceptable but understandable, and correctable by rehabilitation, so if charges are pressed, sentences should be served, long term parole should be issued, and careful, spot monitoring should be maintained.

Personally I don't think it is the government's place to tell people when they are old enough to use their own bodies. I'm not advocating letting kids run around doing whatever, parents still have a role to play in this. I think better sex ed, about how to have safe sex, would help. It is difficult to draw lines in the sand so to speak on what age people can and can't have sex with out picking it just for kicks.

I have probably generalized this too much, but that's a good start, in my humble opinion. Again I agree, good start.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

IPersonally I don't think it is the government's place to tell people when they are old enough to use their own bodies.

This is not a case of the government telling people when they are old enough to use their own bodies. This is a case of the government recognizing an age at which time they become legally culpable for the behavior of their bodies.

If an 18 year old boy, who KNOWS than any "person" under the age of 18 is considered a "minor" by law, accepts that if he commits a sexual act with said "minor person" that he will run the risk of being prosecuted for an offense against a LEGAL minor. If the young man is 17 and the other (consenting) partner is 16, both know, there is no foundation for prosecution, however they run the risk of facing reaction of parents should they find out.

I believe 18 to be a reasonable age. Are you suggesting the age be lowered or removed all together? I doubt you would find many supporters of removing the age all together.

I'm not advocating letting kids run around doing whatever, parents still have a role to play in this. I think better sex ed, about how to have safe sex, would help. It is difficult to draw lines in the sand so to speak on what age people can and can't have sex with out picking it just for kicks.


I do not believe the age was chosen arbitrarily. Are "minors" emotionally ready and able to accept the responsibilities that go along with their actions? Pregnancy IS a defninite possibility, are minors really equipped to handle such situations? Sex-ed doesn't help, it has in fact, produced HIGHER rates of pregnancy, STD's, and AIDS among youth and minors. Giving children MORE information, just gives them more options to get into deeper trouble.

I do not know if you have children, but I do. If I ADAMANTLY tell my children not to do something, even if I take inordinate care to explain WHY I am telling them not to do something, this sparks a fire in my children to push the boundaries and do what it is that I have told them NOT to do. The education I give, in enlightening them as to WHY I do not want them to do it, is NOT what stops them from doing it. Kids think they are invincible and immune to harm -- scare tactics do not work (I remember, I was one). Threat of punishment, threat of repercution MIGHT help. However, the best is the "out of sight, out of mind" attitude. If they are not exposed to it, they have no reason to think about it, and they probably will not.

HOWEVER, please resist the urge to twist my words. I REALIZE we don't live in a vacuum, and we cannot control everything our children are exposed to. But it is better to address exposure to such things as they arise, instead of assuming that they WILL be exposed to them "someday," so better to give them ALL the exposure at one time in an in-your-face approach.

I have heard it said, I do believe DoctorDoom said it actually, that teaching sex education without a moral underpinning is like giving a child a driver's license and turning them out on the street in a vehicle without teaching them the rules of the road and preparing them for the activity. (BTW, that was a paraphrase, not a literal quote.)

I believe "sex education" should be the responsibility of the parent, not the school.

[Shadow]

In many if not most jurisdictions, the age of consent is 16. Many states have stipulations on this. For example, Delaware allows sex between 16 year olds and adults as long as the adults are not over the age of 30. An adult over the age of 30 would have to be married to the minor for it to be legal. In Texas, the age of consent is 17 with no stipulations. Quite a few states have stipulations related to age difference. In such cases whereas 18 is generally the age of consent, an exception is made for those under 18 when the adult is no more than two are three years older than the minor.

[SmellyFed]

Removed. See appropriate thread in FW for reason.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

In many if not most jurisdictions, the age of consent is 16. Many states have stipulations on this. For example, Delaware allows sex between 16 year olds and adults as long as the adults are not over the age of 30. An adult over the age of 30 would have to be married to the minor for it to be legal. In Texas, the age of consent is 17 with no stipulations. Quite a few states have stipulations related to age difference. In such cases whereas 18 is generally the age of consent, an exception is made for those under 18 when the adult is no more than two are three years older than the minor.

I stand corrected (actually, I'm sitting :grin: ).

[Shadow]

I stand corrected (actually, I'm sitting :grin: ).

Well you work hard, so you deserve to get off of your feet. :couchplus

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Well you work hard, so you deserve to get off of your feet. :couchplus

Thank you ever so much Shadow . . . wouldn't wanna babysit wouldja? LOL

Nobody can EVER say, that as a conservative, I don't apologize for my mistakes, or admit when I am wrong, :smirky:

[Nyahsee?]

This is not a case of the government telling people when they are old enough to use their own bodies. This is a case of the government recognizing an age at which time they become legally culpable for the behavior of their bodies.

I disagree with the way you color the issue. You would be right if the government didn't make it a crime to have underage sex, or sex with a "minor". To me that is the government placing rules on people.

I believe 18 to be a reasonable age. Are you suggesting the age be lowered or removed all together? I doubt you would find many supporters of removing the age all together.

I don't have the answer, all I am saying is that there is no real difference in a person the day before and the day after their 18th birthday.

I do not believe the age was chosen arbitrarily. Are "minors" emotionally ready and able to accept the responsibilities that go along with their actions? Pregnancy IS a defninite possibility, are minors really equipped to handle such situations? Sex-ed doesn't help, it has in fact, produced HIGHER rates of pregnancy, STD's, and AIDS among youth and minors. Giving children MORE information, just gives them more options to get into deeper trouble.

I don't have the answers you are looking for, but I will say this. Are all adults emotionally ready to accept the responsibilites of their actions, are all adults ready to be parents.

I agree that the way sex ed is discussed in school now days, abstinence only I'm looking at you, doesn't help anybody. We should talk about safe sex in school, and keep the opt out for parents that want to do it there way.

I don't know what you mean, sex is something that is pretty damn obvious. I'm pretty sure that when two people reach sexaul maturity they can figure out how to put two and two together.

I do not know if you have children, but I do. If I ADAMANTLY tell my children not to do something, even if I take inordinate care to explain WHY I am telling them not to do something, this sparks a fire in my children to push the boundaries and do what it is that I have told them NOT to do. The education I give, in enlightening them as to WHY I do not want them to do it, is NOT what stops them from doing it. Kids think they are invincible and immune to harm -- scare tactics do not work (I remember, I was one). Threat of punishment, threat of repercution MIGHT help. However, the best is the "out of sight, out of mind" attitude. If they are not exposed to it, they have no reason to think about it, and they probably will not.

First off let me say "I don know nothing about birthing no babies". That out of the way I just want to point out that not all kids are the same. What works on one may not on an other. Again I'm way out of my depth when it comes to raising an other human being.

I'm going to take issue with the last two sentences because they are rather like some from the paragraph above. Certainly every teenage male can testify that sex drive is certainly real, and when you get two naked people in a room together things start to become obvious.

HOWEVER, please resist the urge to twist my words. I REALIZE we don't live in a vacuum, and we cannot control everything our children are exposed to. But it is better to address exposure to such things as they arise, instead of assuming that they WILL be exposed to them "someday," so better to give them ALL the exposure at one time in an in-your-face approach.

I agree we shouldn't throw it all on someone all at once. In steps we teach them the reality of the world they live in, and let them make choices with the help of their parents.

I have heard it said, I do believe DoctorDoom said it actually, that teaching sex education without a moral underpinning is like giving a child a driver's license and turning them out on the street in a vehicle without teaching them the rules of the road and preparing them for the activity. (BTW, that was a paraphrase, not a literal quote.)

Morality shouldn't be taught in schools, there are too many different sets of morals. Even amoung Christians, do we teach Catholic morality? Calvanist? Keep the teaching of morality in the home. All I am saying is that facts should be giving to the kids, let them make what they will of it.

I believe "sex education" should be the responsibility of the parent, not the school.

Again I agree that the moral area of the issue should be at home, the facts can be given with out offical stance on whether one should or shouldn't do something.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

In any case, I put my money where my mouth is (so to speak), I don't have to worry about teachers whom I don't know, and whom I know nothing about their morality bias teaching sex-education to my children. I homeschool, I know the teacher personally, and am married to the principal. :grin:

[UnkHiram]

I disagree with the way you color the issue. You would be right if the government didn't make it a crime to have underage sex, or sex with a "minor". To me that is the government placing rules on people.



Nyahsee

Society has the Right and obligation to determine an appropriate age when children become adults. Children should not have sex! Our Society has determind that a child becomes an adult at 18.

[PrezLeefun]

ok...I love how you guys have been responding but you havn't really answered the question. The question is what makes a sex offender...not how should they be punished.

I always figured it was mostly sexual abuse in childhood.