Sex Offender? Your life will be a living hell.

^ Whatever happened to the constitutional rights? Someone commits a crime and is sentenced accordingly. Then, after spending decades in jail, these persons should not not be treated any differently than innocent people. *Unless* their psychological condition makes it highly likely that they commit violent crimes again (as it's the case with some sex offenders), in which case they should simply not be released from prison / custody. Any way you put it, to release them and subject them to lifelong harassment is *not* a civilized solution.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - February 20 2009 at 10:20

Slartibartfast wrote: Georgia is one of three states that bans drinking alcohol sales in stores on Sunday, but allows it in bars and restaurants.

Hell yeah Indiana too!

npjnpj wrote: If children are involved, I don't give a damn about the offenders, I'm strictly on the children's protection side.

Absolutely, the real issue to ponder here is does this law actually do what it's intended to do.

I was on a jury in Georgia last year that involved a defendant that was 30 something and had what was three counts apparently "consensual" acts with a teenager over the course of a couple of days.  I will refrain from the details, fortunately for him, he took a plea on the day we had assembled for the trial, and the teenager was spared from having to testify.  If he had not done so, the judge said he was going to get a life sentence if we found him guilty and suspect we would have.  As it is, he's going away for 30 years and will be on the registry.  Is this guy going to be a threat to teenagers or younger when he gets out?  I don't know.  He's pretty much wrecked his life being a jerk anyway.  I don't know if being on a registry will protect children when he gets out or not or even if he would actually be a threat.  Seems like in this case it may be just piling on, but I think the judge made a good call.  Just glad I didn't have to make the call.

To sidetrack this discussion just a little, Georgia is one of three states that bans drinking alcohol sales in stores on Sunday, but allows it in bars and restaurants.  One of the reasons put forward by defenders of the band is that if it's lifted there will be more drunk drivers.  Seems to me that forcing drunks to go out and drink puts more out on the road than if they could get some on a Sunday and do it at home.  If you live in a county on the border there's a state close enough by where you can get it and bring it home on a Sunday. 
Actually if you listen to other arguments it's really just a thinly veiled attempt to have a personal religious belief codified into law and is a violation of church and state separation.  Of course given the current makeup of the US Supreme Court, highly unlikely it would be struck down if a challenge were to make it there.

This is clearly a sensitive topic, and I would ask you continue to post with restraint and maturity.

Henry Plainview wrote: Epignosis wrote: I'm a rather strict conservative (who drinks an awful lot, but yeah, yeah)... I don't think that's unusual. ;-) But still, why say a man can live close to a church?  Is he not available for repentance and hope? I assume it's because there are youth groups and such, but yes, it is odd that the "Bible Belt" would bar people from practicing their religion, although I guess you could it in your home. Then again, when I drove to Florida to visit my grandparents, Georgia was the only state with billboards for a strib club by the highway. And there were a lot of them.

I-85 is pretty nasty for that (so is 95).

I understand the reasoning for preventing a sex-offender from being around children.  But does that keep him away from attending church? 

And what if he has his own children? 

Honestly, this law is the greatest example of good intentions that do nothing.

I'm a rather strict conservative (who drinks an awful lot, but yeah, yeah)...

Anyway, I think this:

[...]under state law, can't live or work within 1,000 feet of a church, school, day-care center, skating rink, park, swimming pool or any other place where children gather.

is retarded.  Can the felon go to church?  Can he go skating?  Can he swim anymore?

Seriously- if a man sexually assaulted my child, he wouldn't have any of the above options at all.  But still, why say a man can't live close to a church?  Can he not go to a church?  Is he not available for repentance and hope?


Edited by Epignosis - February 19 2009 at 22:53

Well there is always Mary Kay, from my neck of the woods:

James wrote: What a lot of people also seem to forget is that women often are offenders yet nobody looks at a woman in a strange way 'cause they think she's a sex offender.

You are using the word often a bit too freely there. Women are only 14% of offenses against boys and 6% against girls.

I suspect the reason why men overwhelmingly are the rapists and the murderers is probably best left to another thread, though.

James wrote: Also, if for some reason one of us men was to accidently come across an indecent image or two (and it could happen) and we got caught (again, it's possible)

That is unlikely because of the way they tend to target people, as far as I know. But if the FBI continues this tactic, you could be rickrolled to jail.

zappaholic wrote: First off - child molestation should be a death penalty crime, along with murder and rape.  Sorry, but that's what I believe.  (And I tend more left than right.)

Actually exectuting them would be better than making their lives impossible to live.

How have we allowed things to get this crazy, and is there anything that can be done to stop it?

"Stranger Danger" The best part about the hysteria is that the vast majority of rape is done by someone the victim knows, usually fairly closely.