Kansas City Star - November 6, 2003 - B2
Missouri State Appeals Court frees woman who was held as sexual predator
I was looking up this case because she was HIV+ at the time she sexually abused five young boys. She was freed on the grounds that women cannot be sexual predators and thus are not required to meet the same standards as men, such as registering.
Recently, a Missouri man has been charged with having sex with women while being HIV+, so I wanted to see if they ever recharged her with this crime. I have a reporter also looking. Weren't we surprised to find there was no case listed. Some time in the last three years, she got the record expunged, so there is not record of her actions, let alone that she did it while being HIV+.
Now the question to be asking yourself, do you deserve to know if she is living in your neighborhood?
2006-11-21 03:03:59 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It should be noted that only two states always charge women as pedophiles, California and Washington
2006-11-21 03:21:02 · update #1
First off, you said you had someone looking to see if she was ever re-charged. If they let her go, why are they going to recharge her?! Your Kansas City Star article title excerpt was from when this woman was FREED, not charged.
And secondly, the only reason you're looking is because some guy is going around being HIV+ and having sex with women. It has nothing to do with being a sexual predator. You never stated whether or not the women this guy had sex with did it voluntarily (not knowing he was HIV+). Otherwise, wouldn't you have worded that a man was being charged with raping women while HIV+.
Women in general should be required the meet the same standards as men, but should it matter if she's in your neighbourhood? Just keep your kids away from strange ladies and you shouldn't have a problem.
2006-11-21 03:28:44 · answer #1 · answered by bosnjgal 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
BS. This woman is a predator. She should be charged with attempted murder and sex wtih a minor. And she should be locked up. I sure as hell don't want her anywhere near me or my family.
Sexual predators should have to live with the stigma all their lives, even if they never committ another act of sexual depravity.
2006-11-21 04:35:05 · answer #2 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To answer your question, I would say NO.
What is fascinating to me is that we have a PUBLIC LIST for people who should BE IN JAIL, not living among us.
Secondly, if we have a list for sexual predators, people who presumably have not murdered anyone, why do we not have a public list for murderers who have finished their jail terms and live in our communities?
2006-11-21 03:07:31 · answer #3 · answered by C = JD 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the most obvious answer is HELL YES!!!! that is disgusting and she is nasty. she need to be locked up somewhere thinking about the possibilities of her spreading that deadly disease....and it's not like she doesn't know she has hiv, she is being extremely careless, stupid and completely out of control!!!
2006-11-21 03:16:04 · answer #4 · answered by Wonder Woman 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes! This type of thing is where the system should be able to be punished too!
2006-11-21 03:06:49 · answer #5 · answered by ARTmom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, so I can make sure my gun sights are properly adjusted.
What stupid judge thought that one up? He deserves to be in jail along with her.
2006-11-21 03:07:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Who ever let her off the hook, should be serving what ever amount of time she would have received.
2006-11-21 03:12:38 · answer #7 · answered by kman1830 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
such are the hyprocacies of our law
2006-11-21 03:13:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋