THIS...

Next are you going to say you can't finish this discussion, because you have a life?? That's what they ALL say.... :lol:

 

Quoted out of context

Nice job of quoting me out of context, moron.

Punishment isn't the solution. Punishment doesn't reduce the number of new sex crimes. Laws that punish AFTER THE VIOLATION won't help to stop the violation from happening in the first place. I can see you've got an agenda as well. Quit quoting me out of context:

-----
It's a very slippery slope when one makes statements such as "for X you should be killed or punished incredibly severely." Each situation is unique and "death for all that are convicted of X" is not a viable solution; if the percentages show that the vast majority of convicted sex offenders won't do it again, for whatever reason, killing most of them upon conviction won't stop the PROBLEM. Punishment of ANY KIND is not an effective solution to child abuse, molestation, and rape. The simple fact that it continues is overwhelming evidence to support this assertion. As I continue to preach, attack the roots of a problem instead of putting a small band-aid on a blood-spilling cut. To stop child victimization, the things that cause children to become victims of crime must be addressed. Punishing those who are caught "too late" doesn't solve the problem. To prevent people like your predator, we need to identify and treat BEFORE they do it; this means recognizing warning signs earlier, etc.
-----

 

So I'm supposed to be like yourself and have all day long to engage in a discussion with individuals who only listen to the facts if it supports their already entrenched beliefs? Nah. I don't have all day to devote to punching brick walls. It's not terribly productive and it doesn't make me money either.

 

Oh dear, don't call me your brother's nickname....

http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=reply&story=11960&parent=136942

I provided a link, and quoted the part that stood out to me. What's wrong with that?


And how do you think we should handle this situation?

http://www.wwmt.com/news/old_36447___article.html/area_year.html

 

Let's start somewhere else. I've got a job to go do, so let's see what my responses are in a few hours:

How do the people reading this forum think sexual crime can be stopped?

How would YOU prevent sex crimes from happening in the first place, if YOU were in Congress?

I'll be back in a few hours. Hopefully there will be some interesting answers to these questions, rather than lame attempts to personally attack me like I'm seeing at the moment.

 

I feel once you harm a child there are NO second chances when this happens you crossed a line going 2000 mph and there is no way to chance it happening again .As far as someone off the registry assaulting you being a higher chance thats probally true but then they will go on the registry also.My personal oppinion once you touch a child you should never be able to have a chance to do it again, at the least tattoo baby raper on their forhead so everyone knows what they are .I was sexually assaulted at the age of 4 was admitted to the hospital for this assault the man got 6 months and 2 years probation and went on to rape 3 more children under the age of 5 I'm sorry but he should have never beed released out into public NEVER .He now is in another country so who knows what hes doing to kids over there.They do sometimes go on to rape more children .Its not ok to hurt a child . Ive always felt there should be stricter laws such as ankel devises like they give you on house arrest.Its amazing to me you can do more time in this country for drugs or theft than harming a child.

 

What's wrong with it is that you quoted me out of context. That statement's meaning is different when taken alone than when put with the rest of the content of that post, and you know that. It's a cheap political trick that's used to show an opponent supports something socially unacceptable when in fact they don't. But you already knew that.

As for the beating of the young child, the beater needs to spend enough time in juvenile hall to realize that he'll end up in prison for a very long time if he continues to engage in dangerous and socially unacceptable behavior. Lots of counseling while there will be needed, as well, but kids do damn stupid stuff sometimes, and this incident shouldn't follow the person for the rest of his life.

 

Sorry, angryoffender. I think most peeps here are going to be lame like me. I am curious as to what Clif's take is going to be.

I like being lame.

 

ARE YOU SERIOUS??? How can that statement be different? That IS your position right? That jail time does no good, and we should counsel, rehabilitate, and drop them back into society on the honor system???

Beating a 16 MO to a bloody pulp, almost to death, is more than doing something stupid. There is evil in the world, and that kid is a prime example. You can't fix that. It is too late for him, he is a walking timebomb - he has already exploded once. It would be ignorant and irresponsible to err on his side and risk it happening again.

 

Actually, some people have gotten more time for possession of child porn than others who actually DID something to someone.

Not all abusers can be rehabilitated. Yours might be one of those. By no means is any system perfect, but eventually most people do deserve a second chance, particularly people who are first-time offenders with no prior record. Repeat offenders? Once they did it twice, I can't advocate anything good for them anymore and live in good conscience. I'm that nasty reminder in the back of your head that tells you that every convict is a human too, but I'm not going to pretend like repeat offenders didn't dig their own damn grave. The point is that people are capable of changing, and the idea that "once a molester, always a molester" is not always true.

Don't get me wrong, either: I'm not telling ANYONE to "go easy" on people who physically harm others. There's a lot of people caught up in the "sex offender" net, though, many of whom didn't harm children or even didn't touch anyone to get there. Consensual teen sex partners that just happen to not be within statutory age ranging and people charged with child porn on their work computer are two prime examples. Who did THEY rape, molest, torture, and kill? Are THEY equal to John Couey?

 

It's clear that I will have to ignore you if you keep this up. You're not even able to SEE beyond the line you quoted, you enormous fool!

JAIL WON'T STOP FIRST-TIME OFFENDERS. How can it? They haven't got a record or a conviction yet, and the majority of sex offenses are FIRST-TIME OFFENSES. Get it through your thick skull! YOU QUOTED ME OUT OF CONTEXT. I wasn't talking about convicts in that statement. I was talking about the problems that CAUSE new sex crimes to occur, and the things we DON'T provide to detect and prevent those sex crimes BEFORE THEY HAPPEN. Get this right or I'm ignoring your posts, because I won't tolerate you choosing to quote me out of context and attack a point that I never made in the first place. You're putting words in my mouth.

And if you want to advocate for that kid to be executed, just remember that if you ever get caught doing something really stupid (and it CAN happen), you might be the next person on death row by the time your opinion is enacted into law.

 

Oh No, don't ignore me. Then I won't have to joy of watching you get all riled up while you are supposed to be making money. It was a pretty shocking statement, in and out of context IMO.

And yes, I would advocate to have that little bas-My Friend put to death. And if it were my child that he had beaten I would do it myself, with my bare hands.

You can't save that kid. His dad went to jail for beating him, yes it is a cycle, he was prone to erupt. And he did. Now, it's too late.

 

Well, if they were looking at child porn then its in the back of their mind .These laws are to protect children and the people who take pics of children are harming those children in some way or another and looking at it is as bad as doing it or is paying off the person who is taking these pics or what ever type child porn they are making.If it was legal to make child porn then they would and probaly are kidnapping children to make this and harming more children in the process.As far as the registry and repeat offenders that little girl Jessica in Flordia is an exampel he killed that child if he had a ankel devise on they would no where he was and that girl would be alive today.The laws need to be stricter and if its hard on some oh well if it saves one child then its worth it.

 

Take the time to understand what I was saying, rather than making assumptions based on one line that "you feel stands out."

You're entitled to your opinion. Everyone is. Unfortunately, I don't really know enough details about the case to make an informed decision, so I can't formulate a very solid opinion at this time.

 

Amen if it was my child he did that to I would have killed him myself.Just because he was abused is no excuse to hurt someone else.If thats the case then half the worlds gonna plea that.Its as bad as the devil made me do it crap.

 

When it's your child that's headed to prison because of a bad law, some of what you just said will change.

Also, it's worth noting that John Couey wearing an ankle bracelet wouldn't have stopped him from picking up Jessica Lunsford. It only shows a dot on a screen, not a camera view of what he's doing. The bracelet is a false sense of security, and very expensive to the taxpayers at that. North Carolina considered them until they saw the cost of implementation and management, then they scaled the program back to include only the worst offenders.

It's also worth nothing that Joshua Lunsford, who is Jessica's 18-year-old older brother, is in court on felony sex crime charges for touching his girlfriend. Mark Lunsford changed his tune the second THAT came up.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsUKlsKmuVA&mode=related&search=

OMG! In closing the man being interviewed said something to the effect of "They killed somebody, I only licked somebody" in comparing his crime/time to that of a murderer.

 

First of all I raise my child to respect people and with lots of love she would never harm anything or anybody.Second of all if she did that to someone I would not stand up for anyone harming an innocent baby.




The man who killed Jessica was in another state than he was registered in wasn't he?
Changed his tune?So now hes ok with his daughters rape and murder? I do not think so.

 

How you raise your child does not guarantee that your child won't make a mistake--we all make mistakes, in fact, and not every single person that gets labeled as a sex offender is some kind of sexual deviant serial baby rapist druggie. Your child is a girl, so your child stands far less of a chance of getting tagged as a sex offender from a mistake (remember Debra LaFave, and how she admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old boy, yet all charges were mysteriously dropped after her lawyer argued she was "too pretty for prison?") Still, it doesn't mean that she won't get sexually curious and fall into hot water accidentally due to hormones; look up the story of the two teens who were essentially the same age and E-mailed self-made "naughty pictures" of each other to each other--and were both charged with production and distribution of child pornography. The concept of "sex offenses" is covering more and more ground in the name of stopping the REAL child predators, but the most frequently harmed people by new laws is children themselves. Take residency restrictions: how is preventing a sex offender from officially sleeping 1,000 feet or more away from a school going to stop them from going to that school (or even, perhaps, your own neighborhood) to commit a devious crime? It's not even a remotely effective solution. Now turn that "solution" on its head: yes, you may say "well it's too damned bad, if the guy doesn't want to have to move and deal with it then he shouldn't have done the crime!" But what about the victims of the law--the sex offender's family? If a man is convicted for having child porn on his computer at work, is it really fair to force the entire family to move for fear that the man will pull a John Couey if his bed is too close to a school? Is it really fair to tell the wife and kids that all they have to do is get divorced and throw the father of the children to the curb and they won't be victims of the law anymore? There are two or more sides to every story (or law), and my goal is to encourage everyone to look at the OTHER side. To play the Devil's Advocate, as it is said. That's what I do, and that's why some people don't really like me around, but the only way to make a truly informed and proper decision is to know and understand ALL the facts and sides to something BEFORE making that decision. Ultimately, the lesson is that each situation is unique and should be examined on a case-by-case basis, rather than blanket ideas such as "sex offender = baby rapist" and punishing with that type of idea in mind.

Regarding Mark Lunsford: he spent a lot of time going around the country talking about how ALL sex offenders should be harshly punished, have their rights stripped, etc. No, he doesn't suddenly think his daughter's end was okay, it is outrageous to even propose that that is what I meant. When Joshua was charged with a sex crime, Mark Lunsford CHANGED HIS POSITION. Suddenly, he added a "Romeo and Juliet" exception to his statements, where before his comments were broad and did not distinguish between a serial child molester and teens in the back seat of a car. Even Mark changed his thinking when it finally hit him, and the laws he worked to get passed suddenly have begun to hover over his own son's head. Should Joshua Lunsford get 25 to life if convicted? In the interest of equal protection under the law, yes. In the interest of sex offender laws that are actually sane, absolutely not.

 

Yeah, the end of that video kind of freaked me out a little bit, but he does have somewhat of a point. At least in his case, the child lives and has a chance to go on to be perfectly normal; in the murderer's case, however, the flame of life is extinguished, and that child never has a chance to grow up and live life at all. It's a very touchy subject and that guy didn't pick the best way to get his point across at all, but ignoring that last guy's, errrr, "argument," that video does have some excellent points that should be discussed.