Gamelot has diverted our discussion about the nature of legislation and morality as discussed here and has ventured into what can only be described as incredible territory.
That's what I was bringing into question.
Well, you haven't even interacted with my main arguments on the topic, so I'll move on just as you have and wait for you to deal with what I've said.
How often do we do that? How can we be sure we're not doing that now? I, for one, am absolutely convinced that we are.
I don't see how this is even applicable to our day, since we don't live in a theocracy.
Now, on sex offenders...
I just found that out about the sex offender laws, and I think it's kind of weird that public urination = sex offender registration.
At the same time, the sex offender search websites will often display the crime, and so you can tell whether the guy committed aggravated sodomy or urinated publicly.
On a side note, I don't have the least sympathy for that person. Don't get drunk in public. Not that freaking hard.
A man who is drunk and urinates in an alley is treated the same as a man who rapes 5-year-olds, as far as the sex offender laws are concerned.
No they don't.
At least some of the search websites list their crimes.
And the public urinators aren't published as harshly as pædophiles.
housing is impossible for sex offenders to obtain
Good.
In fact, I'm house-hunting, and we saw one that we really liked.
Oops, a sex offender (agg sodomy and indecent exposure with a child) lives 2 doors down.
If not for that registry, who knows what could have happened to my beloved 13 month old daughter?
Christ offers people a second chance. His followers do not.
This is the kind of wild-eyed generalisation that would do the worst of our national politicians proud.
Provide evidence that these laws you decry are driven by "Christ's followers". If you can't, you should withdraw your assertion.
How is alerting others to a potentially dangerous person by putting them on a list equivalent to not giving them a 2nd chance? Seems like you could say that if these guys were executed. But in this case, they're just limited in their options until they can prove themselves non-dangerous. Big deal - that happens all the time.
If people don't know the law and do such a disgusting thing as urinate publicly, what is your argument for giving them a 2nd chance? What would that look like? Just ignoring it?
Is ignorance of the law an excuse? Can I murder someone and then attempt to credibly claim I didn't know it was wrong? Why or why not?
I'm tempted to draw a parallel to the Holocaust
Dude, you don't want to do that.
Just stop and think, for a second how horrible that event truly was. I think that most people these days have lost their horror of it b/c all they know they've experienced thru a textbook or a movie.
I've experienced no more than that but I've cultivated the sense of horror in my heart so as never to lose the revulsion, the awfulness. To even MENTION it in the same breath is to do a ludicrous disservice and insult to the memories of those murdered. Don't go there.
The point remains, though, that the similarities are there.
The differences in degree AND in quality are so vast as to make the comparison absurd.
What did those murdered in the Holocaust DO? Nothing.
What do these 'sex offenders' DO? Something. And they get on a registry that usually describes the crime. The victims of the Holocaust were murdered along with their whole families. Get off it.
7 comments:
Not all cultures are so offended at public urination:
Click here
And that's a western country, to say nothing of the third world.
Ahh yes, I guess you have no incontinence problems, I hope it stays that way.
If you think it's ok to have public urinators listed, well why not shoplifters, muggers, drunk drivers etc?
From there we can move onto jay-walkers and speeders (Don't speed and cross against the lights, not that freakin hard).
I hope you're being consistent.
Now you don't want to live two doors down from a sex offender. Neither do I. But what is the result if they can't find a place to live? Maybe they'll squat in your house when you are on holidays. Is that better? Maybe they'll sleep in the park. More opportunity to fall back into sex offending if you live on a park bench, with all those potential victims passing by in the dark. Then of course, they won't be able to get a job, and they'll probably rob your house for food. Maybe then they'll be caught three times and be in jail for the rest of their lives on the three strikes your out rule, at the taxpayer's expense at 50 grand per year per person. (may as well have given them a pension and a home in the first place).
It's all very well to not want to live next to them, but have you considered the result?
Oh yes, and if those people have a family, what did they do to receive this punishment? Maybe it is the same as the holocaust after all.
Anon,
I've lived in France and seen several tools whipped out for public bizness.
I'm just saying I don't have a problem with the law. You know it. Don't do it. Doing it b/c you're drunk removes even more sympathy. I don't have any sympathy for public drunkenness to begin with.
Why would jaywalking, etc, be labeled a sex offense? Do you use your sex organ to commit them like you do for public urination?
But what is the result if they can't find a place to live?
They find places. Get real.
In one instance, it was 2 doors down from where I was thinking about living.
It's all very well to not want to live next to them, but have you considered the result?
Since they DO find places to live in real life (as opposed to your imaginary world), everythg else you said is bunk.
And the fact that you do equate it to the Holocaust AGAIN tells me all I need to know. You are a morally blind idiot and fool.
Apparently, you are not in the habit of reading the news. Your anecdote of one person with the means to have accommodation hardly proves the case.
And it needn't be said, that if someone is homeless, they could take up residence in the park next door to your house WITHOUT registration.
No, you don't use your organ to jay walk, but why stop at public urination? I mean, are you afraid the person two doors down is going to wizz on your garden, so you want them registered? A burglar two doors down is fine, but no public urinators.
As for the ad-hominem, obviously you are very judgemental and not at all forgiving. Publically drunk once, no forgiveness for life. I hope you are not judged the way you judge others.
I remember reading that article, actually.
Here's why it didn't make any difference to me:
"They've often said that some of the laws will force people to live under a bridge," said Charles Onley, a research associate at the federally funded Center for Sex Offender Management. "This is probably the first story that I've seen that confirms that." The five men under the Julia Tuttle Causeway are the only known sex offenders authorized to live outdoors in Florida...
The five committed such crimes as sexual battery, molestation, abuse and grand theft. Many of the offenses were against children.
No public urinators, these 5. Sexual battery? Molestation? How are these guys not in prison? They're FELONS.
And you cite this to support your contention that this marks some kind of huge campaign, some flood of hundreds of sex offenders not being able to find a place to live? These are the ONLY GUYS in Florida!
Come on.
And you're boo-hooing that a Holocaust is taking place against them. A more morally-misguided statement I've rarely seen.
are you afraid the person two doors down is going to wizz on your garden, so you want them registered?
I didn't say I agreed with that part of the law, did I? No.
And I made other points which you haven't even touched. Try again.
A burglar two doors down is fine, but no public urinators.
Who said I'd want ANY criminal 2 doors down?
So much the better if ALL criminals are known to the general public!
obviously you are very judgemental and not at all forgiving. Publically drunk once, no forgiveness for life.
You who would equate this law to the Holocaust are in no position to preach to anyone on moral issues.
How are these guys not in prison?
If you think they should be in prison, then argue for that. But once they are turned free, you've got to give them the opportunity to rehabilitate their lives. Having them living under a bridge makes things worse.
These are the ONLY GUYS in Florida!
Come on.
Five guys in Miami are the only ones?
So you didn't know that two-thirds of sex offenders in Boston are homeless?
And did you know that the ones who aren't homeless, are probably living next door to you and then leaving at 8pm every night? Yeah, that really helps, they live next door to you while they are awake, and then they are forced to be out and about in your suburb come night time, whereupon a good portion of them are assaulted because of the registry.
I didn't say I agreed with that part of the law, did I?
It sounded like it. You said you don't have a problem with it, don't get drunk it isn't that hard.
So much the better if ALL criminals are known to the general public!
All the general public ARE criminals, as some have been amused to discover, so if you're happy to have your name up there, be my guest.
To the last anonymous poster - 1000 times THIS.
As I said in my blog - it's nowhere near as bad as the holocaust, and I don't mean to say that it is the same... but it has similar properties. During WWII, in the US, we rounded up Japanese and forced them into concentration camps as well, just because we didn't trust them to be in society. We're practically doing the same thing now to our sex offenders.
I do argue that they should be in prison.
And when they get out, they should be on a list.
If they live under a bridge, dang. But I don't want them living near my child and me! If you can't do the time...
And, again, there are places for them to live. Just gotta keep trying. Staking one's cot under a bridge won't get the job done.
I didn't know about the multitude, but why should I have sympathy for them?
And for the love of Pete, why equate them to the Holocaust? The moral blindness is astounding.
What would be required to change your mind? Compare the NUMBERS? Compare the CRIMES? Compare the CAUSES of their persecution (for the victims of the 3rd Reich, no cause; for sex offenders, a sex offense. Duh)?
To the contrary, the laws may be a disincentive: as one registrant has said, “No one believes I can change, so why even try?”
B/c committing sex offenses is disgusting, against the law, and horribly destructive to you, your victim, and society in general. How is this difficult?
Walter D., 58, unknowingly solicited an underage prostitute in 1986
Then don't solicit prostitutes. Especially young ones.
Again. Not. That. Hard.
All the general public ARE criminals, as some have been amused to discover, so if you're happy to have your name up there, be my guest.
You again show your moral ineptitude.
You would equate breaking speed limit laws to sex offenses?
And you would equate sex offenses to the Holocaust. A=B and B=C. A=C. You equate breaking the speed limit to the Holocaust.
Just stop. Think a little.
Gamelot,
As I said in my blog - it's nowhere near as bad as the holocaust, and I don't mean to say that it is the same
You said this:
I'm tempted to draw a parallel to the Holocaust, but for the fact that the Holocaust was far more horrific and targetted people simply because of their race rather than sexual wrongdoings.
To even bring it up is ridiculous, ludicrous.
The "but for"s you inserted are part of what makes the analogy totally disanalogous.
During WWII, in the US, we rounded up Japanese and forced them into concentration camps as well, just because we didn't trust them to be in society. We're practically doing the same thing now to our sex offenders.
Again you make a ridiculous statement.
What had the Japanese-Americans done? What have these sex offenders done? Answering that will answer your objection.
What is it that leads you to these terrible thoughts? Is it your proud non-conservatism? I don't get it. Where did your level-headedness go?
Peace,
Rhology
Post a Comment