I can't believe I agree with the ACLU

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:57 am

The ACLU picks and chooses what cause they will act on, and it's usually dispicable. I find myself agreeing with them on this one, however. If sex offenders have to be registered, then they are still a danger to society. If they are still a danger to society, they should not be let out of prison. It's just irresponsible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ACLU Challenges Oklahoma Laws Limiting Where Registered Sex Offenders May Live

Tulsa World

DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer

September 2, 2006

The suit says the laws force people on the sex-offender registry to move, leave jobs and quit attending church.

A group of anonymous Tulsa County sex offenders who are represented by an ACLU attorney filed a lawsuit in Tulsa federal court Friday challenging Oklahoma laws dealing with where they may live.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, claims that hundreds of people on Oklahoma's sex-offender registry are being forced to move from their homes, leave their jobs and stop attending their churches as a result of recently enacted state laws.

American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma Foundation attorney Tina Izadi asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions stopping enforcement of the state laws and to declare them unconstitutional.

The case was assigned to U.S. Chief District Judge Claire Eagan of Tulsa. As of Friday night, the matter had not been scheduled for a hear ing, although presumably one could be held as early as next week.

The lawsuit lists Gov. Brad Henry, Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris, Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz and Tulsa Police Chief Dave Been, as well as a variety of state officials, as defendants.

The lawsuit says "the plaintiffs have been convicted of crimes -- some for crimes that did not warrant any prison time -- but they have paid the price and today live law-abiding lives as productive members of the community. Now they are being punished again"

Izadi wrote in the lawsuit that plaintiffs who have lived in their homes for a substantial number of years were informed in August in letters from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections that they are in violation of a "zone of safety" provision in state law.

Those who received the letters were told that within 30 days "they must move or face arrest and prosecution of a felony."

In this year's legislative session, Oklahoma's Sex Offender Registration Act was amended to bar sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any public or private school, playground, park or licensed child-care center. Henry approved the changes June 7, and they took effect immediately.

Tulsa police said at that time that the change left only about 8 percent of the city available for registered sex offenders to live.

State law also bars sex offenders from being within 300 feet of schools, child-care facilities, playgrounds or parks.

In combination, the provisions render "virtually all of the city of Tulsa uninhabitable for plaintiffs" and effectively banish them from the community, Izadi wrote.

The complaint claims that the same is true in every other urban- area of the state and that "trying to ascertain whether stable housing is available in more rural areas is difficult, if not impossible."

Izadi wrote that "the statutes will force many people on the registry to sleep in the streets, in their cars, or to set up tents or trailers in the woods."

The lawsuit says the "ostensible" purpose of the statutes is keep Oklahoma's children safe from sexual offenses.

"Yet the statutes impose restrictions, restraints and limits on all people subject to the registry -- even those who pose no real risk and are successfully completing treatment -- because there is no individualized determination of dangerousness," Izadi wrote.

A Tulsa man with no legal representation filed a similar lawsuit in July, but it has not been ruled upon by the court.

Izadi wrote that the new case was being filed without the specific plaintiffs being listed to protect their "confidentiality and privacy rights and to protect them from further harm and discrimination."

The lawsuit was filed along with a motion for a protective order that would allow the case to proceed under a pseudonym and would prohibit the disclosure of any identifying information in all proceedings.

Izadi wrote that if the protective order is entered, a notice could be filed with the court under seal specifying the identity of the plaintiffs if that is necessary.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:25 am

Accountable wrote: The ACLU picks and chooses what cause they will act on, and it's usually dispicable. I find myself agreeing with them on this one, however. If sex offenders have to be registered, then they are still a danger to society. If they are still a danger to society, they should not be let out of prison. It's just irresponsible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Accountable, I know just what you mean about the ACLU. They're like a double edged sword. I was going to play devil's advocate here and ask if they've paid their debt to society, is it fair that these restrictions should be placed on them? But sex crimes with kids or rape of adults is so abominable I can't even do that. I don't know why they let most of these creeps out in the first place.

I am in agreement with you and the ACLU on this.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:45 am

I disagree with that whole "debt to society" concept. I mentioned in here somewhere that the whole prison system needs changing. A convicted criminal is a person who has proven himself a detriment to society. He should be separated from society until he can prove himself a benefit. One rule fits all.

There's lots more details to it. I even got an article published in a local California paper years ago. But that's the gist.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:22 am

So, let's make sure I understand this ( I am blonde, you know). The ACLU is representing convicted sex offenders who say that the restrictions that they have after they "do their time" are too restrictive and they are having to rearrange their lives to accomodate those restrictions.

So friggin' what!

I am the board "animal rights nut" so I don't know numbers when it comes to this stuff but I do know that a large number of people who are convicted of a crime break the law again after being released. Drug dealers don't generally become muggers - they continue dealing drugs. Pedophiles don't become bank robbers - they molest more children.

While your theory on how the prison system should work is interesting - we are currently stuck with the system that we have. (Quite frankly - I am not sure that even Australia is big enough of an island to put criminals on to make sure that they are seperated from the law abiding public.)

Personally - I worry about whether or not a sex offender lives near my son's school. I don't care if he has done his time, been to counselling and is getting some kind of shot. If he reoffends, does my kid or those in his class need to be in his line of sight?

Maybe, just maybe knowing that one will be put on a list, have to move, lose their friends, whatever other "problems" one might have after conviction might actually cause someone to get counselling BEFORE they offend. Wouldn't that novel?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:51 am

The ACLU exists to protect you and me from overzealous or misinformed law enforcement. I'm always saddened to hear words like "despicable" applied to the organization and to the work they do. Certainly, it can be applied to many of their clients, but not all of them, by a long shot. There are many cases you never hear about, because the clients aren't "sensational." If you doubt me, read the ACLU newsletters, which detail recent cases.

Yes, they do have to "pick and choose" which cases they take. Since they're funded by donations, they don't have the luxury of taking every case presented to them.

Make no mistake...I hate pedophiles, the Klan, animal abusers, rapists and the idea of religious imposition/persecution. When the ACLU takes these cases, they ensure existing laws will be properly interpreted and applied...which ultimately protects us all.

If you hate the laws protecting convicted pedophiles....work to have them changed. But don't blame the ACLU for making sure those laws are upheld.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:27 pm

Lulu2 wrote: The ACLU exists to protect you and me from overzealous or misinformed law enforcement. I'm always saddened to hear words like "despicable" applied to the organization and to the work they do. Certainly, it can be applied to many of their clients, but not all of them, by a long shot. There are many cases you never hear about, because the clients aren't "sensational." If you doubt me, read the ACLU newsletters, which detail recent cases.

Yes, they do have to "pick and choose" which cases they take. Since they're funded by donations, they don't have the luxury of taking every case presented to them.

Make no mistake...I hate pedophiles, the Klan, animal abusers, rapists and the idea of religious imposition/persecution. When the ACLU takes these cases, they ensure existing laws will be properly interpreted and applied...which ultimately protects us all.

If you hate the laws protecting convicted pedophiles....work to have them changed. But don't blame the ACLU for making sure those laws are upheld.I applied the word to the causes they usually champion.

Angelica · Post by **Angelica** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:52 pm

If the ex-convict was a theif I could understand it, because he will usually rob adults, and adults can defend themselves..but these lowlife scumbuckets prey on the young and defenseless. These children need everyone in the community to help protect them when these vultures are around. If it was up to me, I would lock them up and throw away the key. A short time in prison may be all he needs to redeem himself in the eyes of society, but the child carries the burden of his assailents crime for the rest of their life..

G-man · Post by **G-man** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:52 pm

That's precisely it, Ang... these scumbags destroy the rest of these children's lives... and the first thing that most of them do when they get out is go right back to the same behaviour... The prison sentences should be longer and when they eventually do get out and are placed in halfway houses or whatever... they should be fit with ankle monitoring devices and when allowed to roam freely they should be monitored at all times. If it were up to me, though the sentences would be far worse than even this... even for the most "minor" of offences... they essentially should never be allowed back amongst the general population, though.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:10 am

I don't agree with the ACLU on this at all. Acc, unlike you, they are not suggesting that these criminals remain in jail but that they should be free to live where they wish once they are released. Is that the part you agree with?

LuLu2 wrote: The ACLU exists to protect you and me from overzealous or misinformed law enforcement.......When the ACLU takes these cases, they ensure existing laws will be properly interpreted and applied.

#1 - the first quote is an overglorification of what the ACLU does. The second is a misrepresentation of what they do. In this case, they are clearly challenging existing laws that are there to protect us from repeat offenders because they feel it is an imposition on the convicted felon. Where do you think these offenders live? In the ritzy neighborhoods of ACLU lawyers? No, they move in where the poor and the blue-collar worker lives.

The only thing I agree with the ACLU on in this matter is that "there is no individualized determination of dangerousness." in respect to the sexual offenders. Unfortunately, the label "sexual offender" is too broad. It can encompass not just child molesters but also teens having sex, consensual adults arrested for having sex in public, adult video store owners, etc. I have no sympathy for any registration required of rapists and child molesters if they are released from custody. They should thank their lucky stars they weren't strung up from an oak tree. But the registration and public notification laws need to be changed so that it doesn't include two teens having sex or two adults caught in the back seat of a car. One anecdote happened in LA. I'm passing this on through second-hand knowledge but I heard of a case where a guy and his girlfriend were having sex in his backyard. Someone called the police, they were arrested and now he must post a sign in his front yard that he is a sexual offender. This is the only problem I have with these laws. They should pertain only to the truly deviant who is a danger to those around them.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:22 am

Accountable wrote: The ACLU picks and chooses what cause they will act on, and it's usually dispicable. I find myself agreeing with them on this one, however. If sex offenders have to be registered, then they are still a danger to society. If they are still a danger to society, they should not be let out of prison. It's just irresponsible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ACLU Challenges Oklahoma Laws Limiting Where Registered Sex Offenders May Live

Tulsa World

DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer

September 2, 2006

The suit says the laws force people on the sex-offender registry to move, leave jobs and quit attending church.

A group of anonymous Tulsa County sex offenders who are represented by an ACLU attorney filed a lawsuit in Tulsa federal court Friday challenging Oklahoma laws dealing with where they may live.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, claims that hundreds of people on Oklahoma's sex-offender registry are being forced to move from their homes, leave their jobs and stop attending their churches as a result of recently enacted state laws.

American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma Foundation attorney Tina Izadi asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions stopping enforcement of the state laws and to declare them unconstitutional.

The case was assigned to U.S. Chief District Judge Claire Eagan of Tulsa. As of Friday night, the matter had not been scheduled for a hear ing, although presumably one could be held as early as next week.

The lawsuit lists Gov. Brad Henry, Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris, Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz and Tulsa Police Chief Dave Been, as well as a variety of state officials, as defendants.

The lawsuit says "the plaintiffs have been convicted of crimes -- some for crimes that did not warrant any prison time -- but they have paid the price and today live law-abiding lives as productive members of the community. Now they are being punished again"

Izadi wrote in the lawsuit that plaintiffs who have lived in their homes for a substantial number of years were informed in August in letters from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections that they are in violation of a "zone of safety" provision in state law.

Those who received the letters were told that within 30 days "they must move or face arrest and prosecution of a felony."

In this year's legislative session, Oklahoma's Sex Offender Registration Act was amended to bar sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any public or private school, playground, park or licensed child-care center. Henry approved the changes June 7, and they took effect immediately.

Tulsa police said at that time that the change left only about 8 percent of the city available for registered sex offenders to live.

State law also bars sex offenders from being within 300 feet of schools, child-care facilities, playgrounds or parks.

In combination, the provisions render "virtually all of the city of Tulsa uninhabitable for plaintiffs" and effectively banish them from the community, Izadi wrote.

The complaint claims that the same is true in every other urban- area of the state and that "trying to ascertain whether stable housing is available in more rural areas is difficult, if not impossible."

Izadi wrote that "the statutes will force many people on the registry to sleep in the streets, in their cars, or to set up tents or trailers in the woods."

The lawsuit says the "ostensible" purpose of the statutes is keep Oklahoma's children safe from sexual offenses.

"Yet the statutes impose restrictions, restraints and limits on all people subject to the registry -- even those who pose no real risk and are successfully completing treatment -- because there is no individualized determination of dangerousness," Izadi wrote.

A Tulsa man with no legal representation filed a similar lawsuit in July, but it has not been ruled upon by the court.

Izadi wrote that the new case was being filed without the specific plaintiffs being listed to protect their "confidentiality and privacy rights and to protect them from further harm and discrimination."

The lawsuit was filed along with a motion for a protective order that would allow the case to proceed under a pseudonym and would prohibit the disclosure of any identifying information in all proceedings.

Izadi wrote that if the protective order is entered, a notice could be filed with the court under seal specifying the identity of the plaintiffs if that is necessary.

I think ACLU is missing the big picture here, but the current laws are also taking worng approach. Current research indicates that short of dramatic "treatment" such as castration these poor people are incurable. If this is true they should not be loose in society unmonitored. I prefer that they live together in supervised communities rather than each state making it's own laws to deal with the issue. If they agree to the radical "treatment" then they can return in an unsupervised way. I don't mean to sound harsh but if there is no effective treatment available (short of the extreme) then I think the protection of our kids trumps their indivdual rights. They are clearly a danger to society IMO.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:43 am

Adam Zapple wrote:

in respect to the sexual offenders. Unfortunately, the label "sexual offender" is too broad. It can encompass not just child molesters but also teens having sex, consensual adults arrested for having sex in public, adult video store owners, etc. I have no sympathy for any registration required of rapists and child molesters if they are released from custody. They should thank their lucky stars they weren't strung up from an oak tree. But the registration and public notification laws need to be changed so that it doesn't include two teens having sex or two adults caught in the back seat of a car. One anecdote happened in LA. I'm passing this on through second-hand knowledge but I heard of a case where a guy and his girlfriend were having sex in his backyard. Someone called the police, they were arrested and now he must post a sign in his front yard that he is a sexual offender. This is the only problem I have with these laws. They should pertain only to the truly deviant who is a danger to those around them.

I completely agree with this. Forcing the above examples to present themselves as sex offenders is ludicrous and cheapens what sex crimes actually are.

While I could see a theif rehabilitated or even a drug dealer, I cannot see rehab for sex monsters. I am speaking of child molesters and rapists. A theif can steal your property which may hurt if it's of value, either sentimental or monetary but I don't think that's a direct violation of your person. A drug dealer can sell you some bad crack but you're the one buying it in the first place. A child or woman (or the infrequent man) never asks to be violated and that's a direct hit on one's soul that can't fully be recouped. According to PC mongers, we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they may have been molested as a kid or because they may be mentally ill, causing them to commit these acts but I'm not buying that. As a society we have a need and a right to protect ourselves and serving prison time doesn't pay a debt to society in this case. They gave up their rights as far as I am concerned when they hurt their victim and I don't feel they should ever get those rights back.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:48 am

RedGlitter wrote: I completely agree with this. Forcing the above examples to present themselves as sex offenders is ludicrous and cheapens what sex crimes actually are.

While I could see a theif rehabilitated or even a drug dealer, I cannot see rehab for sex monsters. I am speaking of child molesters and rapists. A theif can steal your property which may hurt if it's of value, either sentimental or monetary but I don't think that's a direct violation of your person. A drug dealer can sell you some bad crack but you're the one buying it in the first place. A child or woman (or the infrequent man) never asks to be violated and that's a direct hit on one's soul that can't fully be recouped. According to PC mongers, we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they may have been molested as a kid or because they may be mentally ill, causing them to commit these acts but I'm not buying that. As a society we have a need and a right to protect ourselves and serving prison time doesn't pay a debt to society in this case. They gave up their rights as far as I am concerned when they hurt their victim and I don't feel they should ever get those rights back.

RG, I think we can still have some empathy and compassion for molestors becuase there is always a very sad story behind the cases. Having said that though the emphasis must be onprtoecting our kids and to me that means forced seperation and supervision from them until some real cure is found. It's sad and unfair but in this case the risk is to great to let them return normallty socieity even after they do their timme. Totally agree with your comments about seperating child molestors and other types of sex offenders..

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:14 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: I don't agree with the ACLU on this at all. Acc, unlike you, they are not suggesting that these criminals remain in jail but that they should be free to live where they wish once they are released. Is that the part you agree with?Absolutely. The judicial system is trying to have their cake and eat it too. If they serve their sentence, they've served their sentence. Debt paid. If they are still a danger to society, what in hell are they doing out amongst us?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:19 pm

zinkyusa wrote: RG, I think we can still have some empathy and compassion for molestors becuase there is always a very sad story behind the cases. No, we don't. Hundreds or possibly thousands survive horrendous abuse as children and don't turn into such monsters. I don't give a blink for their sad stories. They are adults and must face the consequences of their actions ... actions which they chose to perform.

zinkyusa wrote: Having said that though the emphasis must be onprtoecting our kids and to me that means forced seperation and supervision from them until some real cure is found. It's sad and unfair but in this case the risk is to great to let them return normallty socieity even after they do their timme. Totally agree with your comments about seperating child molestors and other types of sex offenders..Then why let them out at all???

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:19 pm

Accountable wrote: Absolutely. The judicial system is trying to have their cake and eat it too. If they serve their sentence, they've served their sentence. Debt paid. If they are still a danger to society, what in hell are they doing out amongst us?

I agree with you in theory, that they should still be behind bars, but they are not. Our children shouldn't suffer because the criminal justice system puts them back out on the street. I want to know where those suckers are and the politicians were right to make them tell us where they are.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:38 pm

Perhaps what needs to happen is that crimes against children (and I mean REAL children, not some 17-year old girl, for example) should have special laws/treatment.

It's true that a crime is a crime and when a debt is paid...it's paid. That seems to be the issue. Should pedophiles EVER be allowed back into the community? Is it possible for them to ever be "cured?" If not, what to do with them?

911 · Post by **911** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:46 pm

zinkyusa wrote: Current research indicates that short of dramatic "treatment" such as castration these poor people are incurable. If they agree to the radical "treatment" then they can return in an unsupervised way. I don't mean to sound harsh but if there is no effective treatment available (short of the extreme) then I think the protection of our kids trumps their indivdual rights. They are clearly a danger to society IMO.

It has been proven that castration does not work. If they are unable to use their body for molestation, they will use an object. It's in their heads, not their body. There is no cure for a true sex offender.

I was reading an incident report today in the office where the officers came upon a very drunk man lying on the ground outside a gas station. When the officers woke him, he staggered to his feet, turned around and relieved himself by the dumpster. The officers arrested him for public intoxication and lewd behavior. If he is convicted for lewd behavior, he will be labled a sex offender for the rest of his life. That is not right. The laws are too strong when it comes to sex crimes such as this.

Having said that, I believe you reap what you sow. If you commit a sex crime you deserve to have it follow you for the rest of your life. Why should he/she have it easy when the victim doesn't? Should they have to leave the home they were raised in? Should they be restricted where they should live? Should they have to move everytime a new school or daycare is built in the neighborhood they just moved to? Hell yes! They will never finish paying for their crime as long as the victim and their family is still alive to remember it and relive it over and over again.

I don't know the answer of what society should do with them. I don't think they should live together, that just compounds the situation and gives them a sympathic ear for their musings. Is death too harsh? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps each one should live with a big burly man that hates him, for the rest of his life and pay for his crime everynight the way his victim did. But he may even come to enjoy that!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:08 am

Lulu2 wrote: Perhaps what needs to happen is that crimes against children (and I mean REAL children, not some 17-year old girl, for example) should have special laws/treatment.

It's true that a crime is a crime and when a debt is paid...it's paid. That seems to be the issue. Should pedophiles EVER be allowed back into the community? Is it possible for them to ever be "cured?" If not, what to do with them?We could check to see if Ricardo Montalban is still using his island.

Welcome to Pervert Island!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:33 am

911 wrote: It has been proven that castration does not work. If they are unable to use their body for molestation, they will use an object. It's in their heads, not their body. There is no cure for a true sex offender.

Good point.

If he is convicted for lewd behavior, he will be labled a sex offender for the rest of his life. That is not right.

What?? That's nuts! Peeing in public isn't cool but why is that lewd behavior anyway? And lewd behavior automatically equals a sex offense?!

If you commit a sex crime you deserve to have it follow you for the rest of your life. Why should he/she have it easy when the victim doesn't?

Well said.

I am concerned that this topic took a turn to protect children. Please don't forget adult victims deserve and need protection too.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:41 am

911 wrote: It has been proven that castration does not work. If they are unable to use their body for molestation, they will use an object. It's in their heads, not their body. There is no cure for a true sex offender.

I was reading an incident report today in the office where the officers came upon a very drunk man lying on the ground outside a gas station. When the officers woke him, he staggered to his feet, turned around and relieved himself by the dumpster. The officers arrested him for public intoxication and lewd behavior. If he is convicted for lewd behavior, he will be labled a sex offender for the rest of his life. That is not right. The laws are too strong when it comes to sex crimes such as this.

Having said that, I believe you reap what you sow. If you commit a sex crime you deserve to have it follow you for the rest of your life. Why should he/she have it easy when the victim doesn't? Should they have to leave the home they were raised in? Should they be restricted where they should live? Should they have to move everytime a new school or daycare is built in the neighborhood they just moved to? Hell yes! They will never finish paying for their crime as long as the victim and their family is still alive to remember it and relive it over and over again.

I don't know the answer of what society should do with them. I don't think they should live together, that just compounds the situation and gives them a sympathic ear for their musings. Is death too harsh? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps each one should live with a big burly man that hates him, for the rest of his life and pay for his crime everynight the way his victim did. But he may even come to enjoy that!

While not an expert the subject I did do some research prior to my post. There certainly is evidence from studies available that castration does reduce recidivism of male pedophiles. The treatment certainly merits additonal study.

Here is an example of a study:

http://whyfiles.org/154pedophile/3.html

911 · Post by **911** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:37 am

zinkyusa wrote: While not an expert the subject I did do some research prior to my post. There certainly is evidence from studies available that castration does reduce recidivism of male pedophiles. The treatment certainly merits additonal study.

Here is an example of a study:

http://whyfiles.org/154pedophile/3.html

What you also have to remember is that sex offenders come to their aggression through an accelerated process.

For example (and this is a simple example): From activily looking up little girls skirts as a child, to pornographic magazines as a teen to porno movies as an adult to peeping toms to sexual abuse on a child or an adult.

It has been said that the length of time from a peeping tom to an actual abuser can be years but it can happen. Therefore, it is not inconcivable to expect a sex offender who uses his body to accelerate to using something else or even killing out of frustration by not being able to use his body. The mind is an unpreditable thing and mind over body is not unheard of. There are even cases of rapists who were not able to complete the act but harm the victim nonetheless with other items and even kill them.

I still say there is no definitive cure for sex offenders. Perhaps a lobotomy would work. Of course, the old way would be best!

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:42 am

911 wrote: What you also have to remember is that sex offenders come to their aggression through an accelerated process.

For example (and this is a simple example): From activily looking up little girls skirts as a child, to pornographic magazines as a teen to porno movies as an adult to peeping toms to sexual abuse on a child or an adult.

It has been said that the length of time from a peeping tom to an actual abuser can be years but it can happen. Therefore, it is not inconcivable to expect a sex offender who uses his body to accelerate to using something else or even killing out of frustration by not being able to use his body. The mind is an unpreditable thing and mind over body is not unheard of. There are even cases of rapists who were not able to complete the act but harm the victim nonetheless with other items and even kill them.

I still say there is no definitive cure for sex offenders. Perhaps a lobotomy would work. Of course, the old way would be best!

I don't disagree with you, but I think the studies indicate there can be some rather profound differences between pedophiles and those who prey sexually on adult vicitms. The main difference being that a reduction in testoserone and thus sex drive corresponds to reduced sexual activity. I think with some offenders there maybe other psychologial forces at work that are not affected by reducing the hormone levels.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:45 am

That last sentence says volumes, KinkyZee.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:48 am

Sorry, but since there is no "cure" for sex offenders and our laws require that they only serve so much time in prison - then we must assure that there is a way in which to protect women and children from becoming victims.

I am sure that if sex offenders (not just someone who pee's in public but real sex offenders) were left in prison for life - as they can not be rehabilitated - they would have the ACLU fighting for them anyway.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:33 am

Please remember that the ACLU's purpose here is to ensure that the law is applied fairly and equally. ANYONE can apply to them for help. The fact that they'll defend the rights of peaceful assembly (for the KKK, for example) doesn't mean they agree with the KKK's principles.

ACLU provides a valuable function....we should all be glad they're working for us.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:53 am

Lulu2 wrote: Please remember that the ACLU's purpose here is to ensure that the law is applied fairly and equally.

Here, as in this case, they are challenging an existing law that protects us from sexual predators, not making sure the law is fairly applied to sexual molesters.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:37 am

Then I'd suggest there's a hole in that law and they're trying to test it. Be glad.

911 · Post by **911** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:42 am

zinkyusa wrote: I don't disagree with you, but I think the studies indicate there can be some rather profound differences between pedophiles and those who prey sexually on adult vicitms.

Absolutely, I agree.

The main difference being that a reduction in testoserone and thus sex drive corresponds to reduced sexual activity. I think with some offenders there maybe other psychologial forces at work that are not affected by reducing the hormone levels.

I believe that there are all kinds of sex offenders. But, my fear is that they talk about using the castration solution on nearly all of them, including the most despicable of all--the incurables. It doesn't work for all of them and it certainly won't work for the worst of the worst. Those are the ones that scare all of us. We don't worry as much about those that sit behind closed doors and look at porn while 'thinking' of children. Most of the time we don't even know they're there because they haven't been caught doing anything yet. We don't like them, we don't want them in our neighborhood but they are not as frightening as those that actually go out and hunt for victims. But one can only sit behind a closed door for so long before it's just not enough.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:51 am

Lulu2 wrote: Then I'd suggest there's a hole in that law and they're trying to test it. Be glad.

No, I'm not glad. This Marxist organization will protect the right of child molesters to live next to schools but will sue to stop a kindergartener from saying the word "Christmas". :-5

911 · Post by **911** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:00 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: No, I'm not glad. This Marxist organization will protect the right of child molesters to live next to schools but will sue to stop a kindergartener from saying the word "Christmas". :-5

:yh_clap You go boy!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:11 pm

LilacDragon wrote: Sorry, but since there is no "cure" for sex offenders and our laws require that they only serve so much time in prison - then we must assure that there is a way in which to protect women and children from becoming victims.

I am sure that if sex offenders (not just someone who pee's in public but real sex offenders) were left in prison for life - as they can not be rehabilitated - they would have the ACLU fighting for them anyway.The pussies in the legislature (can I say *****?) made an end-run around current law because they were too cowardly to make the stand they should have. If the crime is worth a life sentence, then a life sentence it should be! Forget this namby-pamby "if you promise to be good we'll let you out" crap.

The ACLU will fight for whom they will.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:18 pm

The ACLU will fight to protect anyone from abuse by the law. That's it. If you doubt me, read their charter and read their case histories. Because they take on unpopular causes, they get the fallout from people who don't understand.

Trust me on this one...NOBODY in the ACLU wants anything other than genuine justice for pedophiles, Nazis, KKK and anyone else. It takes a special person to defend the odious because our system is based on the premise of equal justice.

Ask any public defender about that.