IgorKane
@140.192.x.x
 from:
PliotronX 
| reply to mglunt
Re: This Completely Misses The Point!
For the love of this country, stop using the phrase "better protect my family". There are plenty of ways to do that without knowing where the sex offender lives. And if you think that this is crucial, explain to me why you aren't interested in knowing where convicted burglars live. With maps and photographs. Or anyone who has commited a number of other crimes that may have a negative impact on your family.
Somehow we assume that a person who vandalizes a bench in the park, or breaks your car window, or steals your TV is less dangerous than a 17 year old with "feelings" for a 15 year old. And at the same time we assume that all other "petty criminals" will recover and change their lives, but a person taking pictures of her kids is a criminal whose face may as well hang in the post office next to the infamous "top-10" list. Does anyone see a problem with this, or am I an immoral individual with no values or beliefs? |
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
|
I think the possibility of living next to a child molester is a little more serious than a vandal or a burgler. Ask anyone with a child, and I can guarentee you that they would rather have their TV stolen than have someone molest their child. That argument doesn't hold any water.
If I don't know the neighbor who moved in recently is a sex offender, I might let him watch my kid, or let my kid go over and play with his kids (if the state gave his back to him), etc. That is a real way to protect your family other than locking them in the house.
As for the 17yr old with a 15yr old... that is why I said earlier that they should list the offense... so that I know if it is just something minor like that or if it was a 50 yr old guy molesting a 5 yr old. |
|
IgorKane
@140.192.x.x
from:
PliotronX
| The argument holds water because at this point in time we have drawn a relatively arbitrary line of using somewhat extreme measures to protect children from one type of crime but not others (a TV was an example. If your children are sleeping at home or are watching it, do you think they don't have a chance of becoming victims in this situation?). You try to remove ambiguity by offering to list the offense. Good on the surface, terrible when we talk about privacy, especially when we come to a situation where any offense is "statutory" - offense against the law, not directly against an individual. Why would anyone consider stripping people of their privacy and dignity for a minor offense that would be irrelevant in a State with a different statute on the books is beyond me.
It is the government's responsiblity to protect the privacy of its citizens by filtering out certain offenses. You cannot err on the side of "more information" because we believe in privacy (therefore the answer "Simple" doesn't really cut it). This goes back to the whole "liberty/ temporary security" discussion that is very hard to argue with. States that filter by level of offense have it mostly right.
I say mostly because I think that as a society we have a bigger problem that cannot really be solved this way - this is reactive, and not preventive. Ultimately every criminal would have to be listed, because the argument of "protecting the family" can be taken to any extreme and is also hard to argue against. But no knee-jerk reaction has ever solved anyone's problems, only has put off the resposibility of dealing with it. |
|
JimmySask
join:2004-06-24
Regina, SK
| reply to mglunt
What goes along with that though? How much detail do you display? The woman busted for taking pictures of her child in the tub (which is a perfectly natural thing for most parents) is listed as someone in posession of child porn, with no detail as to why? Or to the opposite end, where the serious offender moves in down the block, the neighborhood hotheads get a dose of extreme detail, and decide to form a lynch mob? |
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to IgorKane
Someone simply convicted of burglery isn't a child molester until they molest a child. If they are inside watching TV, then odds are the parents are in the house as well. ...and I wouldn't stand around waiting for the Police if something was happening to my child. Buglery and child molestation are not even close to being in the same category. Short of murder etc, molestation is the worst thing that could happen to a child.
The list has its faults, like the statutory situation, but fix that... don't remove the lists.
As far as I am concerned, the minute someone molests a child, his right to privacy on that matter goes out the window. I'd rather be armed with the information I need than be in the dark because you don't want to offend a child molester.
When you have kids, here is what I want you to do. Check out the list for your state, and move to the area with the highest concentration of sex offenders. Move in right next door to one of them. What? Doesn't sound like a good idea to you? Wouldn't put your family at risk like that? My point exactly. |
|
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA
| reply to JimmySask
said by JimmySask :What goes along with that though? How much detail do you display? The woman busted for taking pictures of her child in the tub (which is a perfectly natural thing for most parents) is listed as someone in posession of child porn, with no detail as to why? Or to the opposite end, where the serious offender moves in down the block, the neighborhood hotheads get a dose of extreme detail, and decide to form a lynch mob? Hear hear Jimmy a man or woman should be able to molest children without worrying about the community clamping down on his or her butt.
Sheesh what is this world coming to when you can't even grope kids without some parent taking offense.
[/sarcasm]
--
DO NOT DOWNLOAD FROM OPENWARES!»methlabs.org/howtotell/ |
|
