Thanks for that explanation. Lawyers get paid a lot to argue both sides of these complicated issues. Hopefully more states will carefully implement tougher laws against monsters who exploit and harm children.
Good News Y'all
by Xandria 16 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Burger Time
I like the minimum sentence but I feel that electronic monitoring is not only useless but not cost effective and a violation of our right to privacy.
-
Xandria
Burger Time,
I can respect how you feel, however, had Couey had consistant monitoring, Jessie would be alive today. Three weeks after they removed the monitoring device, he moved from where he was, kidnapped and repeatedly raped Jessica (she was alive for three days) and then he buried Jessica Lunsford alive, thus ending her life. So, I am not sympathetic to his "rights" he lost those rights, when he committed those first acts that landed him in trouble to begin with, he was a risk then. They should not get a second chance!
When a violent offender does this act, they should lose their rights to any type of privacy. Privacy= Opportunity .
X.
-
Burger Time
There really isn't much proof that monitoring helps. Much like tapping phone calls once criminals figure out what is going on all it does it make people on the outside feel safer. Just recently in the news a man was killed by a criminal who simply slipped his device off and guess what? No one was keeping watch. Our government doesn't and never will have the resources to do such tracking IMO (let alone my personal issues with privacy). That man probably could have raped and killed Jessica with this tracker on, all it would have done is give more evidence he did it. I'll concede perhaps this might have caused him to think twice, but IMO it would have happened either way. You aren't exactly thinking of consequences when you choose to murder and rape someone.
Also I could be wrong but aren't they having major issues with this exact law in Florida? For example many child molesters are homeless and living under bridges so police are constantly having to round them up and moving them just for them to move right back.
Would also like to add that in this great country no matter how evil or vile you are, you never lose your basic constitutional rights.
-
Xandria
Burger Time,
You are speaking to someone who is very close to the Lunsfords. Monitoring isn't fool proof, howeverit does cut down the percentages.
All this talk about offender's rights, you fail to think about the rights of a child. Which is to live their lives UNMOLESTED and ALIVE. We are speaking of violent offenders, who have had a track record here. There are dorms, there are residential group homes, for offenders who have "served their time". There is a very very slim percentage that attend rehabilitation programs and a good number do re-offend. Jessica's Law specifically deals with 13 and under, as well as a 3000 feet rule to places that children frequent.
Most Pedophiles do not take responsiblity for their actions, and thus we as a society have to take the position to protect our children. If it is at the cost of their privacy, too f-ing bad! What is the price of a child's life worth? What about their constitutional rights? Do we discount them?
Have you read the law Burger? For anon violent, offender they can, after ten years request to be stricken from the registry, and depending on what the circumstances of their case is, the court will decide on that matter.
About Pedophiles:
Pedophiles seem to have narcissistic and antisocial (psychopathic) traits. They lack empathy for their victims and express no remorse for their actions. They are in denial and, being pathological confabulators, they rationalize their transgressions, claiming that the children were merely being educated for their own good and, anyhow, derived great pleasure from it.
The pedophile's ego-syntony rests on his alloplastic defenses. He generally tends to blame others (or the world or the "system") for his misfortunes, failures, and deficiencies. Pedophiles frequently accuse their victims of acting promiscuously, of "coming on to them", of actively tempting, provoking, and luring (or even trapping) them.So you can understand why people would not want them around children. This behavior is compulsive and why feed into temptation?
The pedophile treats "his" chosen child as an object, an extension of himself, devoid of a separate existence and denuded of distinct needs. He finds the child's submissiveness and gullibility gratifying. He frowns on any sign of personal autonomy and regards it as a threat. By intimidating, cajoling, charming, and making false promises, the abuser isolates his prey from his family, school, peers, and from the rest of society and, thus, makes the child's dependence on him total.
-
Burger Time
I don't like the fact that the government can decide to slap a monitoring device on whoever they so deem no matter how bad the crime or how many times it has been repeated. Yes children need to be protected but the answer isn't in monitoring people for the rest of their lives IMO. Has there been a dramatic shift in sex crimes in Florida?
As per children rights, no one is arguing that it is ok for children to be molested. Of course they have rights. That argument is a moot point. What I am saying is that IMO monitoring criminals is not cost effective nor do I feel the government has any right to do it. As I pointed out before it isn't really working well in Florida.
Also most molesters choose someone they know. The biggest issue lies with the parents guarding against such things. It's a complicated issue with no easy solutions I realize that, but I just feel the state and federal government are over reaching their authority just to make the public feel safe and not actually be safe.
-
Xandria
As per children rights, no one is arguing that it is ok for children to be molested. Of course they have rights. That argument is a moot point. What I am saying is that IMO monitoring criminals is not cost effective nor do I feel the government has any right to do it. As I pointed out before it isn't really working well in Florida.
Burger Time,
I think you are missing my point, if you have someone who will not govern themselves and are inflicting themselves on someone else at the expense of the victim's well being, then they should lose out. The arguement is not a moot point. Whose rights win out? Theirs or the childs? Government has the right to do this at the request (majority rule) of those who are known as we the people. We ask for protection from criminals, what these people do action wise is criminal. They do not have a recovery, they are constantly ill and what are you to do?
Depending on the severity of the crime, the make up of the offfender, then we have a right to protect our children and family from those who would inflict harm.
Re: Florida, there are other places they can live. They choose to live in child frequented areas. Again there are dorms, there are areas, they just don't want to live there. If they are a productive, and non threat to society that is one thing, but they aren't.
X.