THIS...

Yes, banning me would be grand, because it would mean that you won't have to face what I'm saying. You can continue being hateful and wishing for the blood of those who are convicted to flow in the streets, without having to worry about "that loon" challenging your inner desires.

If this is a forum full of parents, they would do well to stop for a moment, open their minds, and consider what I have to say on neutral grounds, do the research themselves, and then make a decision. You're no different than a partisan talk radio listener; for example, a Republican that only listens to Rush Limbaugh, and damn the rest because they don't shout the ideas that their chosen party stands for verbatim, or a Democrat that does the same thing vice-versa with a different show.

I don't want anyone to automatically read what I say and agree. I want everyone to read what I say, look up the facts for themselves (I provide links to the research that backs my claims), and then decide based on their own neutral research into the matter. A lot of sex offender laws actually endanger kids more, not less, but they don't look that way when you read the news stories that tell you about them. It's what you're NOT told that matters.

I don't get "sick twisted pleasure out of instilling fear into parents." If I instill fear into parents, it's because I'm RIGHT. They NEED to fear the things I'm telling them, because THEY ARE RIGHT. You aren't accusing politicians who run around saying "child molesters behind every bush, must do something NOW!" of fear-mongering, are you? It works both ways.

 

First and foremost, Jeffrey isn't representative of everyone that carries a "sex offender" label. Neither is John Couey, who raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford, nor Jesse Timmendeqas, who raped and murdered Megan Kanka. These are extremely high-profile cases that flooded the news and created a cross-country panic, but they are not representative of the average person carrying the tag of "sex offender." When the level system is properly installed, the majority of offenders will NOT be classed as level 3.

As far as me not respecting the rights of others, that couldn't be further from the truth. Perhaps I step on *perceived* rights of others, such as the "right to know things about other people." That's not a right. My personal political affiliation centers around the core philosophies of the Libertarian, and as such, my prime focus is on the inalienable rights of the People. I believe that you, other forum members, a drug dealer, a sex offender, a politician, an immigrant, or myself should all be allowed to do whatever we want to do, completely unlimited, until what we choose to do infringes upon the rights of others that don't give their permission to step across those boundaries. When I try to explain this concept, a lot of people have trouble accepting it, because it would make a lot of our current laws vanish, such as laws against taking currently illegal drugs, speeding, and consensual sexual activity that is currently illegal (this doesn't include sex with children, so don't make that assumption.) There is a man in the UK that I have talked with extensively about these philosophies, and he can't accept the idea of NOT having "hate crime laws" on the books; he doesn't understand the concept of the punishment in the statutes being the remedy, and the thoughts in the lawbreaker's head not being considered a separate crime (because that reeks of Orwell's "1984" as it prosecutes separately based on thoughts instead of actions).

It needs to be made VERY clear: I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR PEOPLE LIKE JOHN COUEY. If you kill ANY person, I can't advocate for you and keep my conscience intact. I'm advocating for the rights of people whose crimes aren't nearly as violent or mean-spirited as the high-profile cases that the news puts on the television. Just because someone takes a plea bargain for, say, possession of child pornography, doesn't mean that they are running around in circles while they're out in society, wondering what children they can molest now. Each person is an individual. They have a unique case, and they have a side of the story as well. It is too easy to lump the people who wouldn't ever commit another sexual offense with people like Couey and Dahmer.

The UK's getting some of these things right: their politicians voted "NO" on a PUBLIC sex offender registration system, because they recognized that it could push many offenders into hiding. They opened the door to PRIVATE registration information, but the person wanting the information about the person would have to ask about that particular person at the police station, give their information to the police, and sign a form stating that they wouldn't use the information to harass or otherwise break the law and wouldn't spew the information publicly to everyone, because it would have the same net effect as registration with a public website if that were to happen and may result in violence against that person.

I disagree with the "if one doesn't kill, they still have no conscience" statement. They still have a conscience, and the treatment programs are designed specifically to exploit that. This is also how they identify the high-risk offenders during treatment: if they really show that they DON'T have a conscience about what happened, they get slapped with the highest risk level possible, and everything that comes with it, including ankle bracelets and lifetime registration.

Another thing: don't forget that some registered people got there from having consensual sex with a partner that happened to fall outside of the arbitrary legal lines drawn, i.e. a 14-year-old freshman and an 18-year-old senior that are in the same high school together. Is that *really* deserving of felony rape charges? And furthermore, these people will carry the sex offender label identically to the aggravated child molester. Do they have a conscience? Should they feel bad about experimenting with sex just because they happened to have an "illegal" age difference at the time, yet went to the same high school? Everyone WITH a conscience is a victim of the system believing that everyone tagged "sex offender" is equal to Dahmer or Couey. Some sex offenders have families that came about long after completing their sentence, and those families are punished for something that the offender did (perhaps matching the high school example I just gave, in fact) a very long time ago. Can we justify telling that family to lose their home every time we legislate them out of it?

FYI: About your question "how could they live with themselves?" Some of them choose NOT to live with themselves. Some child molesters have committed suicide because they can't deal with what they've done. Like I said, they're still human, even though it's easy to write all of them off as permanent soul-less monsters.

 

OH! I forgot to mention something about the Lunsford case.

Mark Lunsford's computer was found to have child pornography on it. The authorities found child porn after Jessica's brutal killing during their investigation. Mysteriously enough, the authorities chose to make excuses about how it got on there (which is very much a 180-degree turn from how most child porn cases proceed) and at the start of the trial of John Couey, they had to explicitly ask that the child porn evidence on Lunsford's home computer not be admitted into evidence.

For some reason, they let Mark Lunsford get away with it. Anyone else who had NOT had their child killed a few days before would have been lynched by the courts without mercy.

 

Angry offender I have a question for you Who did you rape?Was it a child or an adult?

 

Who did YOU rape, angeleyes?

 

who me? Nobody I do not defend rapist, thats your job remember.For you to be so insulting to everyone on here and this topic hits so close to home for you ,your not fooling anyone you must be a convicted sexual predator.

 

For you to be so insulted by my presence, you must be a convicted sexual predator.

You see, you make assumptions about me, but you really don't know a thing. You ask loaded questions: "who did you rape?" which assumes I raped someone. I can ask the same of you, but I don't know anything about you other that what you say.

You're trying to slander me so you can discredit my words. The truth of my statements is unaffected by whatever you perceive me to be. Why can't you argue on the truth of my statements? Why can't you present research that backs your opinion? WHY, dear "angeleyes," is your only option to attack me personally to try to win the argument?

Because you're not able to back up what you're shouting. So, show me some research proving your opinion is right instead of trying to attack me, and I might be able to talk to you; otherwise, you're emitting hearsay, rumors, and theory, not facts.

 

uh oh.....I bet ANGRY's response will be the longest in 4042.com history.....:shock:

 

you are defending people who sexually harm children and asking the whole world to feel sorry for them. You are slandering a man who lost his daughter to a horrible crime . come on did you think anyone would actually think your not a rapist / murderer or even worse.As far as attacking you I asked a question who did you rape ? Not attacking you I was curious if you would answer it.If you arent a rapist what made you decide to spend so much time on this project , I mean what made you decide to grow up and defend these people?

 

I think this is someone from this forum .

 

KT I tried to respond to your pm its blocked .

 

I am actually getting scared of Angry .

 

It is??? dang....I have gotten PM's before....:?: :?: :?:

I think I fixed it....

 

It says its blocked . but I agree with every word of your pm I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

His name says it all . I just hope he can't hack into this site and get our addresses. Because he sounds like someone who wants to take his anger out on people.

 

I fixed it! Got your PM and responded....basically we are on the same page.

 

Thanks Grace!! You rock!!

 

Oh I wont let him scare me away ,I think hes a regular on here.

 

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up."
--Martin Niemoeller

What relevant questions have I not answered?

 

Holy chit .............