EA Forums

Okay everyone, I was just wondering what you all thought about juvenile sex-offenders and what should be done to prevent them from re-offending as adults. In the state I live in one can't be placed on the Sex and Violent Offenders Registry unless they have committed a sex or violent crime after the offender has already turned 14 at the time of the offense.

So again, what do you all think should be done to juveniles that has committed sex crimes (at any age)? And when I say sex crimes I basically mean rape or something of that nature, not the lesser stuff like say urinating in public (which in the state I live in you can be placed on the SVOR for it.) Btw I live in IN.

The way that most states deal with the sex offenders registry is a travisty.

Here in Maryland, a boy of 18 who has a 16 year old girlfriend with whom he has consentual sex can be listed FOREVER as a sexual offender.

Urinating in public,(pissing in an alley by a dumpster) can get you on the list as well.

Seems to me that we as a society need to be very careful of who we place on the registry. Rapists, child molesters, and other voilent sexual predators certainly should be there, but a boy who has sex with his underage girlfriend?

We are currently ruining innocent lives with our puritan ways, and the list for many becomes a Scarlet Letter.

Those who are truly a threat should be kept in state run facilities, until such time as competent professionals deem them cured of their antisocial behavior. If not, then we keep them in facilities away from the population, not living blocks from schools.

Even voluntary surgical castration is not a solution since all one needs is some testosterone to overcome that, and if we were to emasculate them, then they'd just use other things to penetrate.

Proper administration of the offender list as a National database is essential, and making sure that some randy teenagers life isn't ruined by being listed is paramount.

Raymar

There's a video you can google where in middle east a sex offenders penis is cut off in public on a chopping block with a sword. That's what I consider poetic justice for violent sex offenders. They do need to go one step further I think and thats to cut their balls off to. There's another vid in Africa somewhere where a tribe cut a sex offenders penis off with a knife, again a certain way of stopping re-offending.

I am a bit sus about the ones who claim that they want to be castrated after they are caught. I think they might just be trying to live out their fantasies at tax payer expense.

I feel that chemical castration just doesn't put fear in to their minds before they offend.

I think these deviant sex perpetrators of any age should be forced to watch reruns of "Ellen" until they crack and become sniveling, pathetic, weeping wretches. After this horrific punishment, which puts this civilization back into the stone age, we should have them publicy emasculated. We could maybe sell popcorn or tacos.

Greg Heidl of Orange County Califo-nia fame is currently living in Laguna Beach and requesting the courts to over turn his conviction so he will not be on all those lists or have to register in a new neighborhood.

It is getting so a kid can't couch his peers to abuse a passed out girl with a pool cue and lit cigarettes without being, labeled for the rest of his life.

Moi

colorado seems to have found the worst possible solution.

Juvenile offenders can receive an "indeterminate sentence",

they are kept in prison until the prison decides to let them

go. They are required to complete courses which are available

at only one prison and that prison does not have sufficient room

for those who must take the programs.

An 18 year old who gets his 16 year old girlfriend pregnant is

likely to be in prison for life.

Sweetpickle (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:30 pm colorado seems to have found the worst possible solution.

....................

Sweetpickle (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:30 pm An 18 year old who gets his 16 year old girlfriend pregnant is

likely to be in prison for life.

I agree there should be special consideration for the 18 year old with a 16 year old girlfriend if the sex is consentual.

Nullification (castration and penectomy) would be a good punishment for adult male sex offenders if adequate precautions are taken to assure that they are actually guilty and not falsely charged. However, what would be an equivalent punishment for adult females who have sex with underage boys?

Okay, getting away from my original post which was about juvenile sex-offenders.

What should be done to prevent juvenile sex-offenders from re-offending?

Juveniles who commit criminal acts of any kind are treated differently because we acknowledge the possibility they may be confused or misled or immature, and that they may learn better ways. Juveniles are assumed to be more remediable than adults, so the emphasis is on re-education rather than punishment. Society does not want to waste a potentially valuable life.

Nothing can be done to prevent anyone from re-offending, regardless of their age or their crime. One can only hope, and part of hoping is to extend young people the chance to prove they've reformed. I understand the rate of recidivism for sexual offenders is high, but I believe the rate is high for all ex-convicts. It's a topic for another thread, but I've read of pilot programs which have helped ex-convicts greatly reduce their recidivism.

I suspect that the far greater punishment given to sex offenders compared to other criminals (denial of parole, involuntary commitment after "release," public watch lists, etc.) reflects our sad discomfort with sex more than it does anything else. A man who exposes his wee-wee in public is seen by many to be worse than a mere armed robber or drug dealer. The flasher is felt to be morally abnormal, while we can sympathize with someone who hurts other people for money. That reflects our own peculiar money-based morality more than it does the objective danger of various criminals. Violent crime must, of course, be strongly discouraged, whether or not there's a sexual aspect to the crime.

Here at EA, we should resist the temptation to project our own castration fantasies onto the law. This may entertain us, but it makes for bad public policy.

...............

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:46 am I suspect that the far greater punishment given to sex offenders compared to other criminals (denial of parole, involuntary commitment after "release," public watch lists, etc.) reflects our sad discomfort with sex more than it does anything else. A man who exposes his wee-wee in public is seen by many to be worse than a mere armed robber or drug dealer. The flasher is felt to be morally abnormal, while we can sympathize with someone who hurts other people for money. That reflects our own peculiar money-based morality more than it does the objective danger of various criminals. Violent crime must, of course, be strongly discouraged, whether or not there's a sexual aspect to the crime.

.................

This brings up another question. Why does society punish a man for exposing his wee-wee in public while considering it acceptable for a woman to do the same? They could both be doing it for the same reasons: (1) to be sexually threatening; (2) as a sexual offer; or (3) just to relieve themself. Who makes the determination that the man is a sexual pervert and that the woman's behavior is acceptable? Why?

Women don't rape right? WRONG... And how about these school teachers and the 13 year old boyfriends? Yuck... It it worse when its a male teacher? Well its probably more "gross" but lets be serious. BOTH are wrong. And if you fire one and send the other to jail for 20 years? There is a problem.

People who rape little kids and such? I really don't know. There was a politician who said we should not "murder" killers. For we don't "rape" rapists. So, what is justice? All I know is that when a rapist (or murder) who gets out from jail in some crazy short sentence and does it again? WE are the idiots. We have to decide if we are going to get serious about this or not?

Does castration stop people from doing sexual crimes? Having had low Testosterone I think it does! Is that Justice? A good question. If it protects other people from the criminal doing it again? Its worth serious consideration at least.

About 35 years ago, I went for a job interview. The boss's secretary, a young woman, sat a bit behind him. During the interview, she spread her legs wide and wiggled her all at me. She wore a Mona Lisa smile, but no underwear. The interview was more challenging than most. Should she have been sent to prison for a thousand years? I don't think so. I was entertained, and left with a good story. No one was harmed by her naughty behavior. Yet, had I raised an outcry and called for police, who knows what might have happened.

We're fraught with anxiety about sex, not least because, as a society, we don't agree on what's acceptable. The law takes a puritan view, and punishes things that millions of people do every day, some of them EA members. Many are indignant at almost any expression of sexuality or mention of sex. They're the ones who're outraged to hear someone say "fuck" and make up lists of words that can't be said on TV. ("It's for the children.") Other people routinely engage in illegal acts while being happy and healthy and respected.

For example, a new park opened in Manhattan last year - an old railroad called the High Line was converted into a deluxe park along the west side. A new hotel straddles the park (the Standard Hotel), with the park carving a tunnel through the heart of the hotel. Trendy and affluent young people often perform sex acts in the floor to ceiling windows of the hotel, in full view of the park. This has been widely publicized, written up in the newspapers, etc., and become a minor craze. Crowds gather to watch while people put on impromptu sex shows in the hotel windows. This is illegal, but there've been no arrests. Most people enjoy it. Business is booming at the Standard. Meanwhile, men are still arrested and sent to prison for being flashers. The contradictions and inconsistencies are so common as to defeat moral certainty.

There are of course heinous crimes of sexual violence committed, and these must be deterred. But so long as we as a society are conflicted about standards of sexual behavior, it's hard to avoid injustice.

mrt (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:34 pm Women don't rape right? WRONG... And how about these school teachers and the 13 year old boyfriends? Yuck... It it worse when its a male teacher? Well its probably more "gross" but lets be serious. BOTH are wrong. And if you fire one and send the other to jail for 20 years? There is a problem.

People who rape little kids and such? I really don't know. There was a politician who said we should not "murder" killers. For we don't "rape" rapists. So, what is justice? All I know is that when a rapist (or murder) who gets out from jail in some crazy short sentence and does it again? WE are the idiots. We have to decide if we are going to get serious about this or not?

Does castration stop people from doing sexual crimes? Having had low Testosterone I think it does! Is that Justice? A good question. If it protects other people from the criminal doing it again? Its worth serious consideration at least.

Castration and penectomy will prevent male rapists from doing it again. What will stop the women rapists?

..................

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:12 pm We're fraught with anxiety about sex, not least because, as a society, we don't agree on what's acceptable. The law takes a puritan view, and punishes things that millions of people do every day, some of them EA members. Many are indignant at almost any expression of sexuality or mention of sex. They're the ones who're outraged to hear someone say "fuck" and make up lists of words that can't be said on TV. ("It's for the children.") Other people routinely engage in illegal acts while being happy and healthy and respected.

..................

I remember when you couldn't even say hell or damn on TV. There was never any case of people even using the restroom (without being seen) or just sleeping (no sex) in the same bed.

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:12 pm For example, a new park opened in Manhattan last year - an old railroad called the High Line was converted into a deluxe park along the west side. A new hotel straddles the park (the Standard Hotel), with the park carving a tunnel through the heart of the hotel. Trendy and affluent young people often perform sex acts in the floor to ceiling windows of the hotel, in full view of the park. This has been widely publicized, written up in the newspapers, etc., and become a minor craze. Crowds gather to watch while people put on impromptu sex shows in the hotel windows. This is illegal, but there've been no arrests.

.

actually in NY the laws are very specific regarding public exposure from with in your home, which includes hotel rooms, you are not required to have window coverings but you also dont have the right to object someone viewing you from a distance greater than 3 feet from your window. and that your unit is not a ground floor or store front unit

so you can have sex or walk around naked or whatever and if people want to watch thats their choice

Mac, remember when married couples on TV were always shown to sleep in separate beds in the same room?

DavidB, it's good to know the attorney for the Standard Hotel is an EA member. So there's a legal loophole. You know that if most people found this objectionable, there'd be civil suits and the hotel would be boycotted, etc. The behavior would soon end. The point stands that our norms of sexual behavior are in continual flux, and that there's deep disagreement about what should be done. This has been true since at least the 1960s.

DavidB (imported) wrote: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:47 am actually in NY the laws are very specific regarding public exposure from with in your home, which includes hotel rooms, you are not required to have window coverings but you also dont have the right to object someone viewing you from a distance greater than 3 feet from your window. and that your unit is not a ground floor or store front unit

so you can have sex or walk around naked or whatever and if people want to watch thats their choice

My feelings exactly; it is my window and if they want to look in it is their problem what they see.

I'm not saying people should be arrested. Just the opposite. I'm saying that arresting people for sexual behavior supposes the existence of universal rules for what's acceptable and what's not. Most people have their own rules, but right down the road there'll be others who feel the opposite. I mentioned the hotel as an example of behavior that would be contemned by millions of people that is nonetheless accepted and even popular *within the right social context.* The legal point evades the issue. It's illegal and considered deplorable for me to have sex in the park. Standing in a second floor window, 10-15 feet from watchers, may offer a legal dodge, but it's obviously the same behavior. If this tissue-thin distinction is all that separates people from being added to the watch list of sexual offenders, then I question the meaning and usefulness of such lists and of our laws regarding sexual behavior.

If men and women are treated differently by the law, one resolution is to treat women with greater severity. Another, equally effective, is to treat men with the same concern commonly extended to women. I'd prefer the latter. I'm a child of the "sexual revolution," and I'm not afraid of sex and don't think it harms anyone, unless it's intended to harm.

Violence and cruelty are always wrong. Wrapping them in sex does not mitigate that harm, nor does it make it worse.