Conquer Club

What are your thoughts on making sex offender lists public? Some states in the U.S have these lists that anyone can check out, where you get detailed information on where sex offenders live. What are you thoughts on it? Good or bad and why?

I'm generally against "hanging out" people and I must say and I'm not sure it helps the general public very much to know where convicted sex offenders lives. This only further brands them as criminals and makes it harder to change their behaviour. I don't think this is the way to build a fair and just society.

So when were you convicted Gillipig and what for?

I've read about a case where a creepy guy was hanging around a school so someone looked up the registered sex offenders database and saw that guy, reported it and the guy's parole officer dealt with it.

That's how it's mostly used. Not a whole lot of people just go searching on it to find people to beat up or accost.

It'd be nice if it was better run, so people who legitimately aren't a future threat to children aren't dogged by it for their whole lives, but I haven't seen any numbers about how often that happens versus how often actual perverts claim they're being persecuted but just want to be free to ruin more children's lives (see the Catholic church and how they support pederasty).

I don't think most of the guys who show up on To Catch a Predator necessarily deserve to be in a publicly viewable database though, since it's kind of entrapment and they're already all over TV.

pimpdave wrote:So when were you convicted Gillipig and what for?

I've read about a case where a creepy guy was hanging around a school so someone looked up the registered sex offenders database and saw that guy, reported it and the guy's parole officer dealt with it.

That's how it's mostly used. Not a whole lot of people just go searching on it to find people to beat up or accost.

It'd be nice if it was better run, so people who legitimately aren't a future threat to children aren't dogged by it for their whole lives, but I haven't seen any numbers about how often that happens versus how often actual perverts claim they're being persecuted but just want to be free to ruin more children's lives (see the Catholic church and how they support pederasty).

I don't think most of the guys who show up on To Catch a Predator necessarily deserve to be in a publicly viewable database though, since it's kind of entrapment and they're already all over TV.

Okay so what year were you on catch a predator and what episode was it?

It's really a big difference between pedophiles and other sex offenders I might add. At first I thought like you, hang out the pedophiles and warn everyone about them, that will make it harder for them to find victims. But then I started thinking. Try it once in a while it's pretty cool . Other pedophiles and none convicted pedos can come into contact with each other through the sex offender list! Let's say you're a pedophile and want to find other pedophiles to partner in crime with. What is the easiest way to find others like you? See who's been convicted of course! I think lists like that are morally wrong and a danger to society. I can't think of anything worse than organized pedophiles and public sex offender lists surely helps them find each other.

Gillipig wrote:

pimpdave wrote:So when were you convicted Gillipig and what for?

I've read about a case where a creepy guy was hanging around a school so someone looked up the registered sex offenders database and saw that guy, reported it and the guy's parole officer dealt with it.

That's how it's mostly used. Not a whole lot of people just go searching on it to find people to beat up or accost.

It'd be nice if it was better run, so people who legitimately aren't a future threat to children aren't dogged by it for their whole lives, but I haven't seen any numbers about how often that happens versus how often actual perverts claim they're being persecuted but just want to be free to ruin more children's lives (see the Catholic church and how they support pederasty).

I don't think most of the guys who show up on To Catch a Predator necessarily deserve to be in a publicly viewable database though, since it's kind of entrapment and they're already all over TV.

Okay so what year were you on catch a predator and what episode was it?

It's really a big difference between pedophiles and other sex offenders I might add. At first I thought like you, hang out the pedophiles and warn everyone about them, that will make it harder for them to find victims. But then I started thinking. Try it once in a while it's pretty cool . Other pedophiles and none convicted pedos can come into contact with each other through the sex offender list! Let's say you're a pedophile and want to find other pedophiles to partner in crime with. What is the easiest way to find others like you? See who's been convicted of course! I think lists like that are morally wrong and a danger to society. I can't think of anything worse than organized pedophiles and public sex offender lists surely helps them find each other.

Don't let pedophiles out in the first place and there wont be any problems.

kentington wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

pimpdave wrote:So when were you convicted Gillipig and what for?

I've read about a case where a creepy guy was hanging around a school so someone looked up the registered sex offenders database and saw that guy, reported it and the guy's parole officer dealt with it.

That's how it's mostly used. Not a whole lot of people just go searching on it to find people to beat up or accost.

It'd be nice if it was better run, so people who legitimately aren't a future threat to children aren't dogged by it for their whole lives, but I haven't seen any numbers about how often that happens versus how often actual perverts claim they're being persecuted but just want to be free to ruin more children's lives (see the Catholic church and how they support pederasty).

I don't think most of the guys who show up on To Catch a Predator necessarily deserve to be in a publicly viewable database though, since it's kind of entrapment and they're already all over TV.

Okay so what year were you on catch a predator and what episode was it?

It's really a big difference between pedophiles and other sex offenders I might add. At first I thought like you, hang out the pedophiles and warn everyone about them, that will make it harder for them to find victims. But then I started thinking. Try it once in a while it's pretty cool . Other pedophiles and none convicted pedos can come into contact with each other through the sex offender list! Let's say you're a pedophile and want to find other pedophiles to partner in crime with. What is the easiest way to find others like you? See who's been convicted of course! I think lists like that are morally wrong and a danger to society. I can't think of anything worse than organized pedophiles and public sex offender lists surely helps them find each other.

Don't let pedophiles out in the first place and there wont be any problems.

What about the "good pedophiles"- i.e. men or women who are attracted to kids, but don't act on their desires?

Or say the kind of guys who buy the "Barely legal" porn mags?

Pedophilia itself is not a crime, after all.

Symmetry wrote:

kentington wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

pimpdave wrote:So when were you convicted Gillipig and what for?

I've read about a case where a creepy guy was hanging around a school so someone looked up the registered sex offenders database and saw that guy, reported it and the guy's parole officer dealt with it.

That's how it's mostly used. Not a whole lot of people just go searching on it to find people to beat up or accost.

It'd be nice if it was better run, so people who legitimately aren't a future threat to children aren't dogged by it for their whole lives, but I haven't seen any numbers about how often that happens versus how often actual perverts claim they're being persecuted but just want to be free to ruin more children's lives (see the Catholic church and how they support pederasty).

I don't think most of the guys who show up on To Catch a Predator necessarily deserve to be in a publicly viewable database though, since it's kind of entrapment and they're already all over TV.

Okay so what year were you on catch a predator and what episode was it?

It's really a big difference between pedophiles and other sex offenders I might add. At first I thought like you, hang out the pedophiles and warn everyone about them, that will make it harder for them to find victims. But then I started thinking. Try it once in a while it's pretty cool . Other pedophiles and none convicted pedos can come into contact with each other through the sex offender list! Let's say you're a pedophile and want to find other pedophiles to partner in crime with. What is the easiest way to find others like you? See who's been convicted of course! I think lists like that are morally wrong and a danger to society. I can't think of anything worse than organized pedophiles and public sex offender lists surely helps them find each other.

Don't let pedophiles out in the first place and there wont be any problems.

What about the "good pedophiles"- i.e. men or women who are attracted to kids, but don't act on their desires?

Or say the kind of guys who buy the "Barely legal" porn mags?

Pedophilia itself is not a crime, after all.

So, let all of them out because we can't tell who wont act on it? When it comes to protecting kids I don't think there are "good" pedophiles.

kentington wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

kentington wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

pimpdave wrote:So when were you convicted Gillipig and what for?

I've read about a case where a creepy guy was hanging around a school so someone looked up the registered sex offenders database and saw that guy, reported it and the guy's parole officer dealt with it.

That's how it's mostly used. Not a whole lot of people just go searching on it to find people to beat up or accost.

It'd be nice if it was better run, so people who legitimately aren't a future threat to children aren't dogged by it for their whole lives, but I haven't seen any numbers about how often that happens versus how often actual perverts claim they're being persecuted but just want to be free to ruin more children's lives (see the Catholic church and how they support pederasty).

I don't think most of the guys who show up on To Catch a Predator necessarily deserve to be in a publicly viewable database though, since it's kind of entrapment and they're already all over TV.

Okay so what year were you on catch a predator and what episode was it?

It's really a big difference between pedophiles and other sex offenders I might add. At first I thought like you, hang out the pedophiles and warn everyone about them, that will make it harder for them to find victims. But then I started thinking. Try it once in a while it's pretty cool . Other pedophiles and none convicted pedos can come into contact with each other through the sex offender list! Let's say you're a pedophile and want to find other pedophiles to partner in crime with. What is the easiest way to find others like you? See who's been convicted of course! I think lists like that are morally wrong and a danger to society. I can't think of anything worse than organized pedophiles and public sex offender lists surely helps them find each other.

Don't let pedophiles out in the first place and there wont be any problems.

What about the "good pedophiles"- i.e. men or women who are attracted to kids, but don't act on their desires?

Or say the kind of guys who buy the "Barely legal" porn mags?

Pedophilia itself is not a crime, after all.

So, let all of them out because we can't tell who wont act on it? When it comes to protecting kids I don't think there are "good" pedophiles.

I'm not sure it would be about letting them out, as they wouldn't have committed a crime to mean they were in prison in the first place.

kentington' wrote:
Don't let pedophiles out in the first place and there wont be any problems.

Symmetry wrote:What about the "good pedophiles"- i.e. men or women who are attracted to kids, but don't act on their desires?

Or say the kind of guys who buy the "Barely legal" porn mags?

Pedophilia itself is not a crime, after all.

kentington wrote:So, let all of them out because we can't tell who wont act on it? When it comes to protecting kids I don't think there are "good" pedophiles.

Symmetry wrote:I'm not sure it would be about letting them out, as they wouldn't have committed a crime to mean they were in prison in the first place.

Then what does that have to do with my previous post?

Clearly there are some crossed wires here. I was criticizing your use of the word pedophile as equivalent to convicted child molester, or child molester in general, and explained myself poorly. Not all pedophiles are criminals, and some criminals are pedophiles, but have been convicted of other crimes.

Bit more complicated than "don't let pedophiles out in the first place", no?

kentington wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

kentington wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

pimpdave wrote:So when were you convicted Gillipig and what for?

I've read about a case where a creepy guy was hanging around a school so someone looked up the registered sex offenders database and saw that guy, reported it and the guy's parole officer dealt with it.

That's how it's mostly used. Not a whole lot of people just go searching on it to find people to beat up or accost.

It'd be nice if it was better run, so people who legitimately aren't a future threat to children aren't dogged by it for their whole lives, but I haven't seen any numbers about how often that happens versus how often actual perverts claim they're being persecuted but just want to be free to ruin more children's lives (see the Catholic church and how they support pederasty).

I don't think most of the guys who show up on To Catch a Predator necessarily deserve to be in a publicly viewable database though, since it's kind of entrapment and they're already all over TV.

Okay so what year were you on catch a predator and what episode was it?

It's really a big difference between pedophiles and other sex offenders I might add. At first I thought like you, hang out the pedophiles and warn everyone about them, that will make it harder for them to find victims. But then I started thinking. Try it once in a while it's pretty cool . Other pedophiles and none convicted pedos can come into contact with each other through the sex offender list! Let's say you're a pedophile and want to find other pedophiles to partner in crime with. What is the easiest way to find others like you? See who's been convicted of course! I think lists like that are morally wrong and a danger to society. I can't think of anything worse than organized pedophiles and public sex offender lists surely helps them find each other.

Don't let pedophiles out in the first place and there wont be any problems.

What about the "good pedophiles"- i.e. men or women who are attracted to kids, but don't act on their desires?

Or say the kind of guys who buy the "Barely legal" porn mags?

Pedophilia itself is not a crime, after all.

So, let all of them out because we can't tell who wont act on it? When it comes to protecting kids I don't think there are "good" pedophiles.

Are you advocating locking up people on what crime they might commit? You seem to be misreading or misinterpreting what sym said. A person who is sexually attracted to children (a pedophile) but has never assaulted, harmed nor acted upon his/her attraction, you think they should be locked up anyway to "protect the children"?

Once a crime is committed, then no question, lock em up. But to take it a step further and try some minority report type of thing goes a bit too far IMO.


I have another thought question for you all-

Suppose, there is a man who is sexually attracted to children and happens to be a very good computer programmer or such. The man, not wanting to actually harm any children but at the same time driven by his own desires, programs virtual children, images. Then has those images engaged in all manner of foul sexual deeds and positions and such various things.
The question-
Should that man then be arrested for child pornography?

Consider that the pornography in question is in fact no real children at all, but simply computer pixels that he created himself.
Now certainly, most would (should) find such a thing disgusting, but is it a crime? If so, then who was the victim?

What say you all?

Symmetry wrote:Clearly there are some crossed wires here. I was criticizing your use of the word pedophile as equivalent to convicted child molester, or child molester in general, and explained myself poorly. Not all pedophiles are criminals, and some criminals are pedophiles, but have been convicted of other crimes.

Bit more complicated than "don't let pedophiles out in the first place", no?

Not really any more complicated.
If I say "don't let the pedophiles out," then it is safe to assume they were in. Which means I was speaking about convicted jailed pedophile.
Judging by your earlier comment it was clear you saw the difference in my use of the term and the context of the thread is about convicted sex offenders.

patches70 wrote:

kentington wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

kentington wrote:Don't let pedophiles out in the first place and there wont be any problems.

What about the "good pedophiles"- i.e. men or women who are attracted to kids, but don't act on their desires?

Or say the kind of guys who buy the "Barely legal" porn mags?

Pedophilia itself is not a crime, after all.

So, let all of them out because we can't tell who wont act on it? When it comes to protecting kids I don't think there are "good" pedophiles.

Are you advocating locking up people on what crime they might commit? You seem to be misreading or misinterpreting what sym said. A person who is sexually attracted to children (a pedophile) but has never assaulted, harmed nor acted upon his/her attraction, you think they should be locked up anyway to "protect the children"?

Once a crime is committed, then no question, lock em up. But to take it a step further and try some minority report type of thing goes a bit too far IMO.


I have another thought question for you all-

Suppose, there is a man who is sexually attracted to children and happens to be a very good computer programmer or such. The man, not wanting to actually harm any children but at the same time driven by his own desires, programs virtual children, images. Then has those images engaged in all manner of foul sexual deeds and positions and such various things.
The question-
Should that man then be arrested for child pornography?

Consider that the pornography in question is in fact no real children at all, but simply computer pixels that he created himself.
Now certainly, most would (should) find such a thing disgusting, but is it a crime? If so, then who was the victim?

What say you all?

Since the thread was about publicizing a list of sex offenders. I assumed everyone would understand that we are talking about people who have been arrested and convicted.
Thus, after his first post I thought he understood this. I was right he did understand it, so, I assumed he was talking about people with child pornography.

As to your question, I believe there was a case of a guy convicted of child pornography for owning animated porn of the Simpsons children. I really don't want to search this one and find it out.

But without dodging the question. I would have to think about the answer to that. I don't know the legalities. It's kind of like getting away with a technicality. I don't know what I would decide on that question.

Why is containment forever the best solution? Why not prison time and castration/total removal of their Sexual Or-gans?

kentington wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Clearly there are some crossed wires here. I was criticizing your use of the word pedophile as equivalent to convicted child molester, or child molester in general, and explained myself poorly. Not all pedophiles are criminals, and some criminals are pedophiles, but have been convicted of other crimes.

Bit more complicated than "don't let pedophiles out in the first place", no?

Not really any more complicated.
If I say "don't let the pedophiles out," then it is safe to assume they were in. Which means I was speaking about convicted jailed pedophile.
Judging by your earlier comment it was clear you saw the difference in my use of the term and the context of the thread is about convicted sex offenders.

I have tried to offer a degree of common ground to move the discussion on here, but you seem adamant that your original post was flawless. Even Patches, who is not my biggest fan by a long shot, saw the same flaws I did. I'm very good at arguing semantics, to the point of really very annoying levels of pedantry, but I suspect you don't really want to go there, and I don't really either.

So, accept this little nuance, which is not even a major rebuttal, and we're all good.

kentington wrote:As to your question, I believe there was a case of a guy convicted of child pornography for owning animated porn of the Simpsons children. I really don't want to search this one and find it out.

But without dodging the question. I would have to think about the answer to that. I don't know the legalities. It's kind of like getting away with a technicality. I don't know what I would decide on that question.

Oh, the legalities are quite clear, the guy would be charged with possession of child pornography. Doesn't have to be real children, in the eyes of the law.

I don't know about the Simpsons porn version getting someone arrested. Maybe, but a clear cartoon, hell all kinds of weird porn cartoons circulate around.

If a person has pics of kids who were put into such situations, no question, they should be arrested. After all, a child could be pointed to as the victim. Anyone who possessed such pics and such as well, again, the child is the victim and though a third or fourth hand+ later receiving said material contributes to the harm done to that victim.

But a completely computer generated, non existent entity, there is no victim. The law is pretty clear though, it is a crime, but for the life of me I can't really intellectually get around the fact that there is no victim at all. There is not even the attempt to victimize an actual person even. As would be the case of the Dateline thing where they trick online pedo's into coming to the house of a supposed minor that the perp, as far as he knew, was a child.

If one morning, I were to wake up and say to myself- "I think I'll go down to the park today and mug and rob someone." I head down to the park, see there is no one there and instead have a seat on a bench to watch ducks swimming in a pond. A cop walks by, says to me- "Hey? What are you doing here?"
I reply, "Well, officer, I came down here to rob someone but there was no one to rob so now I'm just sitting here watching ducks swim."
Would the cop arrest me? If so, on what charge? Attempted robbery? If so, who did I attempt to rob?
Along the same line of thought. I doubt the copper could arrest me, but no doubt there would be people who would instantly say "arrest that guy!".

Just musing is all.

As to the OP, I don't know what it's like in his country, but in the US court cases are public knowledge (for the most part). Information about minors may be sealed, but if the convicted is an adult then the records of his conviction are public knowledge. Thus, anyone charged with sexual assault type crimes can certainly be put on a list and made public.
The problem is, there are some, many, who are convicted of sex crimes that were not really sex crimes at all. Heck, in some places just pissing in public can get you put on the sex predators list.

It's a fine line. But anyone convicted of any crime, that information is obtainable quite easily by anyone. It's a matter of public record.

Can I own porn of an adult-looking cartoon but her actual age is really 5?

Army of GOD wrote:Can I own porn of an adult-looking cartoon but her actual age is really 5?

Just delete it from your hard drive already AOG, and avoid any future complications.

Symmetry wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Can I own porn of an adult-looking cartoon but her actual age is really 5?

Just delete it from your hard drive already AOG, and avoid any future complications.

ok

but in all seriousness (>implying my last post wasn't serious), in some cases of let's say statutory rape, I think the "rapist" is unjustly put in the sex offenders list.

In my high school, an 18 year old who was dating a 16 year old was charged by the 16 year old's parents for having sex with their kid. Everyone know she didn't have malicious intent while doing it (derp, they were dating), so that was pretty stupid.

Army of GOD wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Can I own porn of an adult-looking cartoon but her actual age is really 5?

Just delete it from your hard drive already AOG, and avoid any future complications.

ok

but in all seriousness (>implying my last post wasn't serious), in some cases of let's say statutory rape, I think the "rapist" is unjustly put in the sex offenders list.

In my high school, an 18 year old who was dating a 16 year old was charged by the 16 year old's parents for having sex with their kid. Everyone know she didn't have malicious intent while doing it (derp, they were dating), so that was pretty stupid.

Yeah, I'd agree with that- a registry of sex offenders lists all kinds of crimes, from those so minor that they're barely crimes, to very very serious offenses. Publishing such a list collates all sex offenses as if they are all the same. It's dumb.

Symmetry, I see you defend the people who are pedophiles but chose not to act on it. Since we're talking about a list convicted pedophiles you have to assume they've all acted on it so it makes no difference. I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that the list is a way for pedophiles to met like minded. This is more disturbing to me than the fact that a list like this is quite immoral. I'd like the list removed for everyones best.

Gillipig wrote:Symmetry, I see you defend the people who are pedophiles but chose not to act on it. Since we're talking about a list convicted pedophiles you have to assume they've all acted on it so it makes no difference. I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that the list is a way for pedophiles to met like minded. This is more disturbing to me than the fact that a list like this is quite immoral. I'd like the list removed for everyones best.

Because it's just an assumption with no evidence?

Somehow, without there being a list, thieves meet other thieves and rob people. BUT HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?!!? THERE MUST BE A LIST SOMEWHERE!!!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Gillipig wrote:Symmetry, I see you defend the people who are pedophiles but chose not to act on it. Since we're talking about a list convicted pedophiles you have to assume they've all acted on it so it makes no difference. I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that the list is a way for pedophiles to met like minded. This is more disturbing to me than the fact that a list like this is quite immoral. I'd like the list removed for everyones best.

Because it's just an assumption with no evidence?

Somehow, without there being a list, thieves meet other thieves and rob people. BUT HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?!!? THERE MUST BE A LIST SOMEWHERE!!!

This is why I have you on foe bbg. You just don't have anything useful to say. On any topic! Which is quite surprising actually because you'd think even a blind hen would sometimes find a grain of corn . You've been picking around in threads a lot too.

Well, we have found a solution to crime, according to Gillipigian logic:

If there wasn't a list of thieves to find each other, then they couldn't organize in order to more effectively steal!

_________________________________________

But wait! There's a Forbes 500 list! I knew it! Those guys can find each other and make business deals and and and do all that bad capitalist stuff. Now, if there wasn't a list, then they couldn't do this, amirite?

There is a list of sex offenders, they could find each other and organize massive kiddie-raiding parties, roving the country-side like the TPDS! Where are the joint kiddie-raiding operations? Why isn't this occurring?

_____________________________________________________

tl;dr

Just because it could happen, it doesn't mean it actually would happen. Anyone can imagine a scenario about what could happen, but without any evidence or even a well-grounded argument (as in Gillipig's case), then the fear of this happening isn't reasonable.

we don't want the pedophiles to have meetings now do we?!?!

Gillipig wrote:Symmetry, I see you defend the people who are pedophiles but chose not to act on it. Since we're talking about a list convicted pedophiles you have to assume they've all acted on it so it makes no difference. I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that the list is a way for pedophiles to met like minded. This is more disturbing to me than the fact that a list like this is quite immoral. I'd like the list removed for everyones best.

I can see why you might think that, but that concern is really not a problem. Why?
First, the list is of people who have been caught and who therefore are more likely to be watched than others. Pedophiles are not really known to want to socialize in groups. They target kids. To the extent they associate with other pedophiles, it is more to share pictures, tips, etc. HOWEVER, the last people they would want to contact would be someone on the list, someone already convicted.