Sex Offender Registry: Is It Just?

betsy · April 27, 2006

Btw, can the family of the slain men sue?

Can the families of their victims sue? They may have paid their legal debt to society but what about their debt to their victims and their families?

But no, seriously...can the families of these slain men sue? Because if the answer is yes...boy oh boy....it will really be cheaper to build up more holding facilities and just keep all these men in prison for as long as it takes. Minimum sentence ought to be 20 and no chance of parole either! Never mind the crap of serving 3/4 of the sentence.

betsy · April 27, 2006

Minimum sentence ought to be 20 and no chance of parole either! Never mind the crap of serving 3/4 of the sentence.

Then and only then should it be "debt paid in full!"

KrustyKidd · April 28, 2006

I simply do not approve of outright character assassination, discrimination and induced potential vigilante justice by our legal system no matter what the reason after the legally prescribed sentence has been served.

In this case I disagree. However, I seem to find this sort of crime more serious than you. Maybe that is the difference between us.

If conditons such as this is attached to the sentence then I think it would be better to keep this type of offender incarcerated indefinately.

I concur. Now, until that happens, I think it prudent we have a registry!

On with the weekend!!!

geoffrey · April 28, 2006

Dear geoffrey,
Pragmatically, a pedophile registry cannot possibly do anything besides give some ridiculous false sense of security.
Let's say some new guy moved in next door to you, your wife and 2 kids. Seems like a nice guy, helped you push you car out a snowbank one morning, had a beer over the back fence with him and talked about how you both dislike the skyrocketing salaries of pro athletes.
Then your wife calls and tells you she just got a flat tire about 10 miles from home. You wonder if he would mind watching your kids for 1/2 hr while you help the wife...

Would you if his name was in the registry? Or would you have already told your kids, "Never, ever go near that man"?

Sorry Lonius I lost this thread somewhere, so I'll respond to this now.

So you would look up all your neighbours to see if they were pedophiles? Ok, I can see some people doing this, fair enough.

But shouldn't you have the same distrust of all neighbours. In today's society, there is so many wacky people that I wouldn't leave my kids with someone in most cases unless I knew those people very well.

This is one of those situations where this gives a false sense of security. Oh he's not on the list so my kids are safe with him!! Not really at all, you should be equally suspicious of someone on the list as someone not.

The list being there doesn't protect your kids.

Apparently in the states the thing is these lists are complete with real-time GPS co-ordinates of the pedophiles. Are you ok with this?

Wilber · April 28, 2006

Apparently in the states the thing is these lists are complete with real-time GPS co-ordinates of the pedophiles. Are you ok with this?

How are they doing this? Are they making everyone on the list carry transponders or are they having people follow them full time continually posting their location on the web?

KrustyKidd · April 28, 2006

But shouldn't you have the same distrust of all neighbours. In today's society, there is so many wacky people that I wouldn't leave my kids with someone in most cases unless I knew those people very well.

Wise words indeed. And, to my 11 year old daughter I give the same advice with 'and in particular, do whatever you can do to stay away from that man that lives in that house. Do not go near him, speak with him and if he speaks to you scream and run.'

This is one of those situations where this gives a false sense of security. Oh he's not on the list so my kids are safe with him!! Not really at all, you should be equally suspicious of someone on the list as someone not.

Who said that we relax when they are not on a list? The list is not designed to persecute, allow people to relax when a name is not on it. Those are all counter arguments thrown out by people against the list that have no merit and are false. The list is designed to provide the indentity of people who you would not wish within one mile of your child as they are at an extreme risk given the ramifications to do severe harm. It does not, in any way, lessen the risk from others to your child. The list is an aid, not an end.

geoffrey · April 29, 2006

Apparently in the states the thing is these lists are complete with real-time GPS co-ordinates of the pedophiles. Are you ok with this?

How are they doing this? Are they making everyone on the list carry transponders or are they having people follow them full time continually posting their location on the web?

I have no idea Wilber... I read this through a news report so maybe this isn't true. I can't find any on the few sites I checked out.

But shouldn't you have the same distrust of all neighbours. In today's society, there is so many wacky people that I wouldn't leave my kids with someone in most cases unless I knew those people very well.

Wise words indeed. And, to my 11 year old daughter I give the same advice with 'and in particular, do whatever you can do to stay away from that man that lives in that house. Do not go near him, speak with him and if he speaks to you scream and run.'

This is one of those situations where this gives a false sense of security. Oh he's not on the list so my kids are safe with him!! Not really at all, you should be equally suspicious of someone on the list as someone not.

Who said that we relax when they are not on a list? The list is not designed to persecute, allow people to relax when a name is not on it. Those are all counter arguments thrown out by people against the list that have no merit and are false. The list is designed to provide the indentity of people who you would not wish within one mile of your child as they are at an extreme risk given the ramifications to do severe harm. It does not, in any way, lessen the risk from others to your child. The list is an aid, not an end.

Is it worth people getting killed over though? These are people that have served their time and may be rehabed right?

I see very limited effects of a sex offenders registry on actually protecting kids. I do see civil liberties problems (these people are no longer inmates, they are free as you or I legally), I do see abuse problems like the murders we recently saw.

Do the positives outnumber the negatives? I don't think so.

KrustyKidd · April 29, 2006

Is it worth people getting killed over though? These are people that have served their time and may be rehabed right?

Well gee, now look, the shoe is suddenly on the other foot with the entire frickin human race being portrayed as armed viligantes. Gimmie a break please. Society did not commit the atrocious acts these guys did and, as a whole, compared to the diddler 6.2 rate of recommitting, what are the overall stats for a Charles Bronson type citizen to commit an act based upon a list? Ahhhhhh .....000000000000001%? Yet, they are, according to your rationale all guilty of being armed, willing and ready to shoot one of these guys as soon as their name hits the list. Reality check please.

As for singling them out and such, hell, probably a Leafs fan so good to go. Just keep your hands off my kids ass. And, the anti list guy down the road just loves them as a left wing poster child so I imagine it would all work out pretty even what, with weirdo chicks wanting to bed a sex offender and all so enough of the feel sorry aspect.

I see very limited effects of a sex offenders registry on actually protecting kids

You mean to say that if there is a person in your neighborhood that is at an almost ten percent chance of abducting and raping a kid who is looking for a lost cat that you feel you don't need or have a protective desire to know about an enhanced danger to your kid? My frickn lord, that's retarted. In fact, it is worse than retarted, it's criminally insane and irresponsible to the point where you would potentially sacrifice a child to be politically correct. I mean, you don't warn your children about things that are dangerous? My lord, I'm beggining to think the left is insane.

I give up. There is no registry here so this is a moot problem for us. I will, as a webmaster inform people if an offender is in my area however, and, work towards creating a registry. You people who think these people are harmless will be proven correct over and over again and then, quietly, some guy will reoffend in an ususpecting neighborhood. There will be a quick cry for a registry and then, people like you will stiffle it and cycle repeats.

geoffrey · May 1, 2006

Is it worth people getting killed over though? These are people that have served their time and may be rehabed right?

Well gee, now look, the shoe is suddenly on the other foot with the entire frickin human race being portrayed as armed viligantes. Gimmie a break please. Society did not commit the atrocious acts these guys did and, as a whole, compared to the diddler 6.2 rate of recommitting, what are the overall stats for a Charles Bronson type citizen to commit an act based upon a list? Ahhhhhh .....000000000000001%? Yet, they are, according to your rationale all guilty of being armed, willing and ready to shoot one of these guys as soon as their name hits the list. Reality check please.

As for singling them out and such, hell, probably a Leafs fan so good to go. Just keep your hands off my kids ass. And, the anti list guy down the road just loves them as a left wing poster child so I imagine it would all work out pretty even what, with weirdo chicks wanting to bed a sex offender and all so enough of the feel sorry aspect.

The point is that these people no longer have the right to live a normal life once their name hits the list. They are free people, with that rights of you and I once they walk out of that prision. If the police have access to the registry, they can uphold the law and warn residents, 'hey guys, just keep an eye out for someone with this description, if you see him near your kids or in playgrounds, give us a call'. No personal information disclosed, privacy is protected and kids are safe.

Probably a Leafs fan? Hands on kids asses? Loves kids as left wing poster children? Weirdo chicks wanting to sleep with pedophiles. What the hell are you talking about?

Make a point please and stop going off on ridiculous tangents that don't even make grammatic sense.

I see very limited effects of a sex offenders registry on actually protecting kids

You mean to say that if there is a person in your neighborhood that is at an almost ten percent chance of abducting and raping a kid who is looking for a lost cat that you feel you don't need or have a protective desire to know about an enhanced danger to your kid? My frickn lord, that's retarted. In fact, it is worse than retarted, it's criminally insane and irresponsible to the point where you would potentially sacrifice a child to be politically correct. I mean, you don't warn your children about things that are dangerous? My lord, I'm beggining to think the left is insane.

I give up. There is no registry here so this is a moot problem for us. I will, as a webmaster inform people if an offender is in my area however, and, work towards creating a registry. You people who think these people are harmless will be proven correct over and over again and then, quietly, some guy will reoffend in an ususpecting neighborhood. There will be a quick cry for a registry and then, people like you will stiffle it and cycle repeats.

Funny how I'm probably one of the most right-wing members in this forum, so I don't really apply to your insane left comment. I'm not being politically correct, I'm being pragmatic. I'd warn my kids that all people that are strangers are dangerous and you shouldn't be with them alone.

So ok, you find out a guy on your block is a pedophile. Do you now not let your kids out of the house? Do you go burn down his house? Do you try to put so much public embarassment on him that he leaves the neighbourhood (not in my backyard complex)? What do you do differently? Tell the kids not to go near him? What difference does that make, the kids shouldn't be going near any stranger...

These people have to live somewhere no?

There are pragmatic problems with the registry. It's nice to fly off the handle with an emotional defense of how it protects all kids, ect. ect.. But when you look at the actual facts, I don't think it does much besides making a list of people to be discriminated against by society, even though they are no longer imprisioned.

6% might re-offend, but the other 94% don't. Do they not deserve a free life? Maybe half the problem here is ridiculously light sentences with little time spent in rehabilitating these people? There are 'right-wing' solutions to this problem without creating a target list for harassment, threats and violence.

Why not have a impaired drivers registry, so I can find out if anyone on my street has driven drunk before, so I can tell the kids to run for the grass as soon as you see his car? Or a speeding ticket registry, to the same effect?

All these people are threats to children. Those that speed or drive dangerously are of greater danger to re-offend and more children are killed in motor vehical accidents then are sexually abused each year (Motor Vehical Accidents are the leading cause of death in children). I'd like to know those that have speeding tickets and any traffic violations so I can go give 'em a little warning about coming around my neighbourhood, ever. :rolleyes:

How absurd. Having any list will not protect any children. Tougher sentences, ok, real justice systems where they have to prove they are rehabilitated before they are released, ok. Responsible parents that supervise their children and teach them how to deal with strangers will protect children.

Some website where you can check out criminals addresses won't do anything.

Once someone is free in society, no one has the business tracking all their whereabouts. That is up to the police, the protectors of society. Not individual vigilantes or neighbourhood thugs.

KrustyKidd · May 1, 2006

Probably a Leafs fan? Hands on kids asses? Loves kids as left wing poster children? Weirdo chicks wanting to sleep with pedophiles. What the hell are you talking about?
Make a point please and stop going off on ridiculous tangents that don't even make grammatic sense.

Here, try it again with my help.

"As for singling them out and such, hell, probably a Leafs fan so good to go."

Means he is probably a good guy on the surface, probably enjoys sports the same as the next guy.

" Just keep your hands off my kids ass."

I will treat you fair and square, just keep your hands off my kids ass.

" And, the anti list guy down the road just loves them as a left wing poster child so I imagine it would all work out pretty even what, with weirdo chicks wanting to bed a sex offender and all so enough of the feel sorry aspect."

You will have some fans in people like Geoffery who think you are getting a raw deal and he will more than likely over correct and go out of his way to be your friend. As well, lots of girls like to bed sexual offenders so he will stand a good chance of getting lucky to boot.

Hope this helps. I think the grammer is quite readable. In short, they are more than likely normal people and would be treated as such by myself and others. However, stay the hell away from my children and thanks to the list, my children would stay away from them.

I'd warn my kids that all people that are strangers are dangerous and you shouldn't be with them alone.

Good for you. Is the new scoutmaster dangerous? How about the new pastor at the church? Both I'm sure will become trusted and familiar faces to your children and, may even be trusted alone with your kids Do you tell them that all things are dangerous or that some more than others? For example, gasoline is very combustable and they should take praticular care when around it or, do you just put that in the same catagory as a rock or a peice of pipe? I mean, they don't need to be extra careful around explosives because they are supposed to be careful everywhere right? Stepping out of the bathtub = the same danger as diffusing a nuclear weapon in your world I suppose. The point is that some things need to get extra care when around them and people who have a proven track record of molesting children are one of those situations. And, some things can never be trusted alone with your kids - a convicted pedophile at a 6.2% reisk of reoffending. The pastor and the scoutmaster are not convicted and while they may have a secret yearning, they have never acted on that and, are very unlikely to in comparisson. Tell me Geoffrey, would you send you kid away on a wekend outing with a convicted molestor who is your son's scoutmaster? Comon, tell me yes that you would. :rolleyes:

And I'll bet that you wouldn't require any precautions other than what you normally would take with your run of the mill scout master right? :rolleyes:

So ok, you find out a guy on your block is a pedophile. Do you now not let your kids out of the house? Do you go burn down his house? Do you try to put so much public embarassment on him that he leaves the neighbourhood (not in my backyard complex)? What do you do differently? Tell the kids not to go near him? What difference does that make, the kids shouldn't be going near any stranger...

I make sure that my daughter does not pass by his house without an escort and inform the other parents that they should do the same as this person has a history of molesting children. If he or she speaks to her then she is to run away and inform one of the other trusted neighbors. If she or her frineds must go near the house for any reason they are to inform myselof or one of the other parents so that there is no opportunity for anythng to happen. If he is seen loitering or acting strangely or speaking to children he will be asked politiely not to. If he continues, a restraining order can be procured I'm sure as he has no business talking to our kids. If he continues to stop, speak or adress children after he has been warned then I am sure further legal recourses are available given that he has no business doing so and has a history of violence towards children.

These people have to live somewhere no?

Fine by me. Can't help that, if not in my neighborhood then in somebody elses. Stay away from my kids as they cannot ever be trusted. A perfect strnager whom your children should never talk to can someday become a familiar friend. A child molestor however can never reach that status.

Maybe half the problem here is ridiculously light sentences with little time spent in rehabilitating these people? There are 'right-wing' solutions to this problem without creating a target list for harassment, threats and violence.

Maybe but really, there is no rehabilitating evil. And that is what these people are. They didn't rob a bank becuase they were greedy, they took a life that was powerless to stop it. Betrayed a humans position of trust in order to get sexual gratification for a brief moment. Took away the lives of all those who know the child and didn't give a damm about the repercussions. These are not drunk drivers or speeders, they are people that while permitted by law to re enter the human race still have the same evil inside their concsience and are a maybe or maybe not walking situation.

Some website where you can check out criminals addresses won't do anything.
Once someone is free in society, no one has the business tracking all their whereabouts.

Agreed. However those people that live in a supposedly safe neighborhood have the right to know if there is an increased threat moving in next door. That's hardly being a thug or a vigilante.

That is up to the police, the protectors of society. Not individual vigilantes or neighbourhood thugs.

You should consider joining the left as you certainly have some views that are typical of them. Police are not guards, they are enforcers of public law. They cannot act until a crime has been commited. I do not wish any child in my neighborhood to be the victim of a person who statisticly is at a 6.2% chance to become a molestor, and then call a cop after the fact. People who are at an increased risk to offend should be considered at greater risk than one who has never commited an offence. While you view people all equally, I view them equally until proven different. A guy who has molested a child and has been convicted has certainly proven himself different.

theloniusfleabag · May 1, 2006

Dear KrustyKidd,

You should consider joining the left as you certainly have some views that are typical of them.

Now, now, I am on 'the left', and am in complete agreement with you.

I read a book some time ago, called "Tears of Rage" by John Walsh, who later went on to host some television police show. I strongly recommend this book to anyone with interest in this subject.

Mr. Walsh's son, Adam, was abducted, sodomized, and decapitated, then discarded in a swamp. The person Walsh suspected actually taunted him from prison, laughing "Yeah, he was crying for his mommy while I f*cked his little pussy".

I would have done everything in my power to kill this person, had it been me. Mr. Walsh has my enduring respect for his composure (though, at times, they allude to many personal difficulties) through it all.

I also seriously doubt that 6% of pedos re-offending is an accurate number. I suspect that this is the number convicted of a second offence, and guess that the number that actually re-diddle is likely above 50%.

KrustyKidd · May 1, 2006

Now, now, I am on 'the left', and am in complete agreement with you.

That's it. I'm going back to 24/7 Werewolfing. This debate forum is not supposed to be like this for crying out loud. :angry:

Anyhow, I suppose that I should clarify when I mean 'left.' I didn't mean it as the normal party type of person who has a shmick but rahter the fringe type where the only cop they liked was the one in the Village People.

I also seriously doubt that 6% of pedos re-offending is an accurate number. I suspect that this is the number convicted of a second offence, and guess that the number that actually re-diddle is likely above 50%.

I must be beating you extremely in another thread or something but just can't figure out which one. I mean, you are sucking up to me to no end here and there has to be a reason. Hmmmm, which one .........can't sleep now. :lol:

theloniusfleabag · May 1, 2006

Dear KrustyKidd,

This debate forum is not supposed to be like this for crying out loud. ...I mean, you are sucking up to me to no end here and there has to be a reason

Gee whiz, spoken like a true 'debater', you don't even want someone to agree with you! Careful, you might feel compelled to change your argument and become schizoid! The truth is, I have a couple of other friends who are like-minded on this issue, and we all feel pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated, and likely don't deserve to be.

From the book "The Gulag Archipelago", the common cure for 'undesirables' was the administration of nine grams. Of lead to the back of the head.

That, however, is a topic for another thread.

Wilber · May 2, 2006

just supervise your own children properly while their young and you shouldn't have any problem period.

Leafless

If one of my children had been abducted from a schoolyard, raped and murdered and you said something like that to me, I would rearange your dental work.

KrustyKidd · May 2, 2006

If one of my children had been abducted from a schoolyard, raped and murdered and you said something like that to me, I would rearange your dental work.

But why? The kid probably was dressed or acted provocatively. :lol: You know, 'asked for it'

Hey, was reflecting on the argument about how we should be equally carefull around all people and strangers. Then a good analogy came to me. See, we are careful whenever we drive right. Cruising along at say thirty miles per hour in a residential area. So why would we need to observe or even have school signs posted that tell us to lower our speeds when we are careful anyhow? Why would we even need to lower our speeds abround kids? They all have been told to look both ways so there should be no problems with them dealing with traffic and, no need to have school zones as both the kids and the drivers are always careful.

Unless of course, some things are at a higher risk to harm. Then again, we are always careful. Therefore, why use safety belts, issue police alerts for dangerous criminals, publicize high impact areas, put falmable signs on gas cans. I mean, we are always careful around everything anyhow. Why mark containers poison when we all know not to drink things from strange containers? So, why would we not be more careful around a person who is probably somewhere around fifty to three hundred times more likely to harm your child than an average person picked at random?

geoffrey · May 3, 2006

Krusty,

I'm not someone that is thinking that they get a 'raw-deal' or anything like that. I have little patience for criminals. View my arguments from the pragmatic position I am portraying them from and you may gain insight. View my arguments from the position that I am a sympathiser of these people and a softy on justice and obviously you'll reach the conclusions you have.

Like I indicated, those with a disposition to driving excessively fast, or drinking and driving, are a considerably larger threat to your kids. Do you believe you should have the right to access everyone's driving records to insure your kids know who is the crazy drivers on the street.

I'll play with one of the examples from either you or someone on your side in this argument. Leaving the kids with the neighbour when the wife's tire is flat. Say you ask the neighbour to drive your kids to school one day because the car won't start, they have kids, completely harmless.

You don't know that this person has been convicted of drinking and driving and has many speeding violations. They kill your kids on the way to school in an accident.

This is a much more real and immenent threat to the children in our society, no?

Yet I struggle with the concept that we should know the driving records of everyone.

I'd agree if you wanted these people locked up for life. I'd agree if you wanted these people castrated.

But a country based on law and order shouldn't have free people listed in a directory with their addresses posted on the internet for all to see. It has already led to more violence. And I have yet to see a case where it has prevented a crime, though that would be nearly impossible to determine I'll admit.

The defense of my position revolves around the pragmatic effect of the registry, which I argue is near zero for responsibile parents as well as the civil liberties argument. People are free when they leave prision, regardless of the crime and should be treated as such.

I spoke out equally against the Holmolka stalkers, ie. the MSM. I don't sympathise with her, and I think she got too lenient of a sentence, she should have been in jail for life. That doesn't change the fact that the law is the law, and she is now a free person.

KrustyKidd · May 3, 2006

This is a much more real and immenent threat to the children in our society, no?

When they are in the car and driving maybe. Child molestors are a threat in the house, in the car, out of the car, in the yard, in the street, in the shopping mall, in the pool, in the school, at work, driving, not driving, at the ball park. Hope this helps you make the differenciation.

Leafless · May 17, 2006

Wilber

You wrote- " If one of my children had been abducted from a schoolyard, raped and murdered and you said something like that to me, I would rearrange your dental work."

Only problem is no one said that to you.

Take your big "IF" and take a hike!

Lynne415 · May 19, 2006

Hi All....Picking this topic for my first foray into these boards, might not be smart... With that being said, I do have a few comments (ok, I have a great deal to say) having read through the previous posts. Registries are something that I have worked with in the states. I have worked with both victims and pedophiles. In addition, I was also a child victim of sexual abuse. Not an expert by any means, only someone who cares.

I believe that sex offender registries are not in place to protect children or potential victims as much as it's the first line of defense for the courts, law enforcement, etc. to keep track of these individuals and keep them accountable. Sexual predators have an extremely high potential to re-offend. With that being said, I do believe there are individuals who are now included on the registries that should not be as they are not high risk offenders. However, something had to be done to address the growing problem of sexual predators within our society. It's not a perfect system, but it does allow society to at least be made aware of these high-risk offenders. The US has finally passed legislation that will make registries uniform across all the states and allow the judicial branch of the federal government to assist in monitoring these individuals. Hopefully, Bush will sign this bill.

No one should ever believe that having a registry will ever make our children less vulnerable to sexual predators. In my childhood experience of abuse, no registry would have prevented my abuse from both a stranger or from a close family friend. In the cases where it’s not a stranger, the sexual predator “grooms" his/her victim and seeks out children whom they know they can manipulate.

What might have made the difference? Having my parents teach me to "trust my instincts" about adults/people. In both situations I had a feeling that something was not "right” before these men ever laid a hand on me. Had my parents told me to trust my gut instincts, to get out or scream or run away, or whatever I needed to do to keep myself safe. Merely telling children to stay away from "strangers" or the "creepy guy down the street" is not the answer since it might well be a stranger that saves a child’s life down the road. Also, teaching children about what are appropriate interactions from adults....such as adults don't ask children for directions or to find a lost puppy. Parents don't send strangers to pick them up for birthday parties or to take them to the hospital if the parent has been injured etc.

With all their imperfections, I do believe that registries do have a place in our society. In my professional experience it is extremely rare for a pedophile or sexual predator to be totally "rehabilitated.” Most that these individuals can do to prevent re-offending is to keep themselves away from situations which can drive their impulses such as schools, playgrounds, and most certainly the internet. I believe that the internet has "fueled the fire" for many and that is why we are seeing more and more cases in the news.

Registries should never be allowed to provoke "witch-hunts" or "running these people out of neighborhoods.” Rather it should be used only as a tool for making sure these individuals are accounted for and limiting as much as possible their access to potential victims.

KrustyKidd · May 19, 2006

Registries should never be allowed to provoke "witch-hunts" or "running these people out of neighborhoods.” Rather it should be used only as a tool for making sure these individuals are accounted for and limiting as much as possible their access to potential victims.

Exactly!!

In my professional experience it is extremely rare for a pedophile or sexual predator to be totally "rehabilitated.”

That's correct in my belief as well. Hence, having the neighborhood where they are living aprasied of the enhanced threat that is within their environment. You can equate it to being like how children shold look both ways before crossing the street, but it is very prudent to apraise them of a particular street where the traffic is more dangerous than normal. In the same vein, if parents do not know which street is more dangerous, they cannot inform the children.

geoffrey · May 19, 2006

Registries should never be allowed to provoke "witch-hunts" or "running these people out of neighborhoods.” Rather it should be used only as a tool for making sure these individuals are accounted for and limiting as much as possible their access to potential victims.

Exactly!!

Exactly!! By allowing the police to have access. You or I don't need the address.

In my professional experience it is extremely rare for a pedophile or sexual predator to be totally "rehabilitated.”

That's correct in my belief as well. Hence, having the neighborhood where they are living aprasied of the enhanced threat that is within their environment. You can equate it to being like how children shold look both ways before crossing the street, but it is very prudent to apraise them of a particular street where the traffic is more dangerous than normal. In the same vein, if parents do not know which street is more dangerous, they cannot inform the children.

That's ridiculous. All streets are equally dangerous, knowing the guy's address isn't going to change anything.

KrustyKidd · May 19, 2006

That's ridiculous. All streets are equally dangerous, knowing the guy's address isn't going to change anything.

Well, sadly we go back to this then;

I make sure that my daughter does not pass by his house without an escort and inform the other parents that they should do the same as this person has a history of molesting children. If he or she speaks to her then she is to run away and inform one of the other trusted neighbors. If she or her frineds must go near the house for any reason they are to inform myselof or one of the other parents so that there is no opportunity for anythng to happen. If he is seen loitering or acting strangely or speaking to children he will be asked politiely not to. If he continues, a restraining order can be procured I'm sure as he has no business talking to our kids. If he continues to stop, speak or adress children after he has been warned then I am sure further legal recourses are available given that he has no business doing so and has a history of violence towards child

All streets are equally dangerous

Yes, the 401 is equally dangerous to a child on a tricycle as Mary Street in Pemborke is. Why don't you equalize the danger between Fiji and Iran while you are at it? Or, the danger Nelson Mandela and Kim Jong pose to world peace? I mean, both are just ...... people right? All streets the same, all offenders the same, all leaders the same. I don't know how else to pose this other than just go into the extreme analogies but you are wrong as far as I can tell.

Oh, hang on, here is more. Al Qaeda is an organization and all organizxations are equally dangerous. Hence, AA, Al Qaeda and the Girl Guides are to be shot on sight. The NRA however may be classed in the same catagory as Al Qadea as they shoot back but, that is of no concern to those who belive that all things are equally dangerous as once classified as an object or thing, they are all neatly put in their place right?

Rue · May 19, 2006

It is a tough issue. Right now the Ont. gov. would have you believe that 94% of the sexual offenders in its province voluntarily sign up on the registry...I wonder however if this is not inflated.

In any event here is the question. You have children. You want to buy a house. Should you have the right to access a registry to see how many registered sex offenders live where you are planning to move?

How about you are the parent of a molested child or someone who has been the victim of a sexual assault. Do you not have the right to determine how many sex offenders are registered in your neighbourhood?

All across the United States and Canada sexual offender registries have been set up. They are here to stay. Political pressure on politicians saw to that.

So the question now really is not whether they should exist or not, but how they should be used..should the public have access to them or just the police....

Me personally I feel if someone has been convicted of a sex crime they should be registered and they have forfeited their right to expect privacy even once their sentence is up.

This whole issue will become academic because I would think within the next 10 years the governments of the day will start micro-chipping people. Its just a matter of time.

Chuck U. Farlie · May 23, 2006

Maybe a bit off topic, but is anyone aware of a place that one could rat on potential offenders?

I do not mean so much for in Canada, we have some law and order here. I mean for other places. I have travelled extensively through out South East Asia, and it always disgusts me to see filthy old sex tourists with young girls or boys.

The police in these places are corrupt and turn a blind eye. If there were some way to rat on these people so that maybe their friends and family could find out just what they are, I think it might possibly be a deterant.

I once witnessed in Phnom Phen, Cambodia, a horrible scene committed by an American surgeon from New York City. I had met him the night before in a pub and cannot remember his name. The following day I noticed him in the same area, but this time he had apparently 'purchased' 3 young girls for his month visit. Their ages were between 10 and 14 years old. I was absolutely disgusted, of course, but there was nothing I could do, short of physically attack him. I certainly did let him know how I felt regarding the scene, and he simply said mind your own business and returned to his hotel. If I had had my camera, perhaps I would have taken a picture and tried to send it to his wife or hospital... but I was unable to do so.

Any suggestions about what to do if I were to see such a dispicable act again?

KrustyKidd · May 23, 2006

Any suggestions about what to do if I were to see such a dispicable act again?

Sending a pic to wifey is about it. Setting him up on a website is slanderous and without iron clad proof (penis in vagina) you have only circumstancial and could end up in a lot of hot water. Course, you could always post his pic on the web with said girls and then allow annonomous comments. Then direct hospital people to that site. All that though is a personal vendetta as it would have no influence on the trade itself and may in the end harm you greatly.

Report an American sex tourist. is another possible outlet for you.