Is this logical? Is this a permanent solution? Is it moral to create a second class citizen by law (restrictions of living 3000 feet from a school etc)? What about other communities? Will they be forced to pass the same laws so "they aren't in my backyard" too? Then doesn't the USA need to create "sex offender cities" that have NO families in them?
2007-05-18 05:40:05 · 12 answers · asked by mark [mjimih] 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree. It's ridiculous. These laws are mostly so that lawmakers can look like they're doing something to solve the problem. They aren't really effective.
It's especially sad that people can be made to register as sex offenders for offenses like statutory rape of their underage girlfriend. Whether or not sleeping with an underage girl as a teenager is wrong or not, something like that doesn't need to follow a person around for the rest of their life. And think about it--people don't have to register as murderers wherever they go for things like vehicular manslaughter, etc. Prison is meant to serve as a punishment. When someone is released, they have served their debt to society, and that should be that.
I think pedophiles should be treated as other prisoners with mental problems and kept in facilities under psychiatric care until they are no longer a threat to society. However long it takes--maybe never. Same with rapists and other sex offenders. Let the doctors who know what they're talking about decide.
2007-05-18 05:56:09 · answer #1 · answered by Flamekat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it reasonable that those on the sex offenders register for life, should be able to apply after a long period (are they talking 15 years?) without re-offending, to be removed from the register. However, I would place the burden of proof firmly on the offender to show that he / she no longer posed a threat to the public. I cannot see any circumstance where it would be appropriate to remove from the register, anyone convicted of a serious sexual offence against a child. Remember, even if someone convicted of such an offence does come off the register, their conviction would still show on a CRB, and they would not be allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults. Allowing offenders to appeal, isn't the same thing as actually granting such appeals. I would envisage it being a very rare occurence.
2016-05-22 07:14:48 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but that's just not a good argument. Schools are usually miles apart. 3000 feet isn't very far. Infact, it's the length of a city block. Yes, it is absolutely logical to impose such restrictions. Yes, for the most part they are indeed second class citizens and deserve to be treated as such. As for creating sex offender cities, I suggest the death penalty instead.
2007-05-18 05:44:39 · answer #3 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Sex offenders should not be allowed around children but they are living in neighborhoods all over this country within a few feet of kids and schools,better supervision definitely needs to be imposed but it is ultimately up to the parents they need to know about these people so they can protect their children!Sex offenders need to be kept on a short leash and if they even act like they are gonna stray lock em back up for good!!!!!!!!!
2007-05-18 06:01:18 · answer #4 · answered by singum404 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think there should be some kind of organization to help former offenders develop some kind of housing communities with guarded entrances to protect them and their properties from paybacks,and protect others from the possible danger of having a criminal living in their neighborhood.Something similar to town houses such as the Jehovah witnesses little community houses.and no I'm not suggesting that we need protection from Jehovah witnesses,im just using their housing projects as an example.
2007-05-18 06:07:02 · answer #5 · answered by just me 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why should they be able to access facilities? They should be in jail for ever ..I am sorry but morals go out of the window with these guys .. is it moral to groom a 3 year old child? Why should they placed in communities? Personally they all need chemically crastrating and forced to live with the reality of their crime as the victims are forced to on a daily basis ..Would you be so supportive of their human rights if some child you knew had been violated i dont think so
2007-05-18 05:50:23 · answer #6 · answered by sammie 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is like you said it doesn't make you any safer by making them live a certain distance away from a school. So if they move from 2999ft. to 3001 feet away you are now safe. Please. The sad thing though is people do not realize who the sex offenders are. A child is more likely to be molested by someone they know than someone they do not know. They are more likely to be molested by their funny uncle than the sex offender that lives 3001 ft away from the school.
2007-05-18 05:48:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
lets just put ALL the criminals under a bridge ! does that make you feel more secure ,to have an unstable person living in an unsupervised and PUBLIC place? death penalty? won't work, hasn't stopped murder yet !! answer.... increase public awareness of the plight of childeren in poverty,and health care for mentaly unstable people.
2007-05-18 05:53:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would rather have sex offenders living under bridges than for one of them to rape or molest someone.
2007-05-18 05:44:17 · answer #9 · answered by Carlos 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
ohh its fair so fair infact possably antartica needs a new village. i am sure it would be nice contracted labor as a matter of fact.
2007-05-18 05:49:01 · answer #10 · answered by janewayps 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋