Of sex offenders and marriage, family, teaching etc

Remove all ads!

After the recent Kansas and tangential thread, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps we should have a separate thread for some concerns regarding the future life of a convicted sex offender.

Firstly, I believe male sex offenders should be made infertile if there's any degree of violence in their act, in order to prevent unwanted impregnation. A large share of the population doesn't accept abortion as a solution here and neither do I (I even believe it shouldn't be an option) and infertilisation could help at least a bit.

Secondly, I believe parents sexually abusing their children should lose custody and the ability to gain custody or adopt. A lifetime ban from leadership positions or work in education or administration wouldn't be bad for those sex offenders who abuse their position in order to coerce sex. E.g. teachers who trade marks for sex (even if there's no requirement but only incentive - i.e. better than deserved marks for sexual services rather than worse than deserved for refusal - children are subject to particular pressure to gain best marks possible) should be banned from education. UN humane aid workers involved in sex schemes should get a ban from charity work involving direct contact. Priests and other clerics from working directly with the faithful. Military or police officers demoted to private and discharged. Etc etc.

Thirdly, I believe people should be informed by relevant authorities if they are going to marry a convicted sex offender. E.g. I'd rather the authorities tell the woman her fiance is a paedophile than respect his privacy and keep it secret. Same goes for targets of domestic violence orders and injunctions, those who have a history of neglecting child support duties etc. I'm a bit torn when it comes to sex crimes not involving violence or deception, from indecent exposure to prostitution. A future spouse (or school headmaster or anyone who hires the person for a job requiring a moral character) should know, but this doesn't override the right to privacy so obviously as sex crime based violence or deception do.

Ultimately, it would help if people universally started regarding sex crimes as real crimes. It's unseemly how molesters (yes, this includes priests) are protected by their superiors and victims intimidated into silence. This is even worse when molestation turns into real coercion. Public and corporate officials should be under obligation to report such crimes under criminal penalties.

Your thoughts?

 

1. Would also help control the population (in a small way). Right on.

2. Sounds good to me, but it's de facto already anyway. Making it a law might help it be more universal, but it might be slighty redundant. Still for, though.

3. Oh good glaven, yes! As soon as a date is set and arrangements start being made, a red flag should come up on some government computer to call this poor person. Might want to give the offender a chance to come forward on his own, though.

GO: "[Ma'am/Sir], there's something unsettling you should know about your [husband/wife]-to-be, [name here]. I think it would be best if you asked them why a government official would be calling you as you prepare to marry them. When they've explained, you can call me back at [phone number] so that I can confirm that they told you the truth. [Answers questions minimally as possible.] Thank you; goodbye."

ULTIMATE!!! ( ): Damn straight!

 

I partially agree but I'm not sure I can accept the "any degree of violence" point, there are cases where sterilization in my opinion would be way to harsh. Then there's of course the fact that there can't be 100% certainty of guilt, if one false man was convicted and sterilized the damage is done and there's no going back. When the system starts hurting people and destroying their lives, even if the chances were slight I can't accept it.
In some cases sterilization could be offered as a alternative to the prison sentence, not making the convict completely free of the sentence but rather giving him a smaller sentence instead.

I have firm faith in rehabilitation and it can work, so I can't support a permanent loss of custody. However I can accept the restrictions for workplaces and adoption, but I don't believe in children taken away from their legal parents unless there is a crime involved in that specific case. There should be psychological studies and examinations of the parents if they are capable of taking care of a child after past offences.

This is a difficult point to me. I can certainly understand that it might be very good to know if your future wife or husband has a history of paedophilia or rape. On the other hand I don't support the fact that criminal records are made public documents available for anyone on demand even if they contain sexual crimes. I'm perhaps willing to make an exception on paedophilia or repeated rapes.

Finally I'll say a huge NO to the right to find out about minor issues such as prostitution or indecent exposure. There is no actual threat involced in either so the other person has no business in those issues.

 

No one should ever be sentenced for a violent sex crime (or any crime, for that matter) if there is reasonable doubt. Problems start when criminal cases take too much after civil cases and someone has to win, so it's either acquitted or jailed. Judges should have the cojones to say "not enough proof either way" and close the case when needed.

So if a man commited a sex crime on one child, you would let him try with other ones?

Any instance of a reformed sex offender? Anything more serious than indecent exposure or a 18 year old sleeping with a 14 year old or some such? Like a real rapist?

I'm much inclined to keep repeated rapists locked until further notice. They have already been given one chance and it's clear they aren't capable of living like normal people.

First, you have addressed the extremes: paedophilia and repeated rape on one side and indecent exposure on the other. What about the middle? Single account of rape? Coerced oral? Incest?

Second, prostitutes can change and some people eventually grow out of indecent exposure. But some don't change, don't grow up. Shouldn't a future spouse be informed? Most people would get over indecent exposure and non-professional prostitution, I guess. They would be pained but would carry on with the engagement and marriage. They would be better off not knowing and there is a chance the spouse won't do anything stupid.

But a privacy concern? Are sex crimes really private? I don't think just anyone should be able to view records, but what if the date is set or in employer-employee relations? I suppose an employer could demand a certificate of never being convicted at all or for a certain kind of crime. That's how it works in some jobs round here. As for spouses-to-be, perhaps a short, "According to article X para Y, we inform that Mr Z is on the list of sex offenders?" What if it is a widower or divorcee who raped or abused his previous spouse? What if it's a transsexualist?

In some jurisdictions, hiding any criminal past is divorce grounds or even nullity grounds. Some sex crimes suggest perversion and psychosexual anomalies tend to be divorce or nullity grounds, as well. Even the simple and "innocent" indecent exposure may suggest exhibitionism. Prostitution... do I need to explain?

 

It's not like no one has been wrongfully killed by the system because at the time they thought there was no reasonable doubt.

I don't deal with individual cases, and even since they would prove nothing. Rapists are probably more likely to repeat their crimes than some other criminals but it's not like all of them repeat their crime. If they would we would be in a endless spiral of rapes considering how small sentences they are given (atleast compared to US) but for some reason we are not.

That would depend. The goal of the penal system should allways be rehabilitation and not just punishing. Dangerous individuals are to be kept away from the society and repeated rapists definently need a lot of pondering before even considering to set them free.

Incest, probably but the rest of them no. If a guy has been free for say ten years and made no signs about repeating his offence I think it's fair not to let other people dig into his past he'd rather forget. When dealing with paedophiles and the like their rehabilitation can be more difficult, the same goes for repeated offenders. I would not lock either away permanently but keep a very close eye on them, and possibly warn people close to them. I would not however let just anyone find out where paedophiles around them live. Even the paedophile has some rights no matter how hideous his crime was and if his whereabout was public information I doubt there was much anyone could do to guarantee his saefty and even here there are plenty of lynch mobs that would gladly beat up or even kill a paedophile given the chance. So people around the paedophile probably should be warned if possible but the information should not be fully public in my opinion.

No. The spouse should know his partner well enough to detect these things, if not then it's certainly not the government's job to start pointing out flaws in the spouse. Sure these things can be invisible but I definently won't support any attempts to make criminal or medical records public for the spouse unless there is life risk involved. Period.

EDIT: I forgot to adress this:

Try? No. If there is doubt about the man's ability to take care of the child then the child will be taken away but I won't accept it as a default rule that there is no rehabilitation from child molsetation. It's a difficult path and having children is not such a good idea and if and when the man has a child there should be regular check's by the government to see how things are going, that way abuse can be prevented or detected early. Also there would have to be a mother to the child somewhere too. If the man was to take care of the child by himself then it probably would be a better idea to take the child away instead.

 

This is quite a difficult topic to talk about: I find myself split between Morgoroth and Chev.

I agree with Chev that people have the right to know about past sexual offenses and that people with positions of power/influence over children should be watched carefully.


But, I agree with Morgoroth that rehabilitation should be allowed in some cases, and that sterilization as punishment may be too harsh.


For rape cases, the rapist should be evaluated by a team of pyschiatrists (spelling?) in order to determine whether or not a rapist should be let back out again (after a rehabilation period). For most cases, the person deserves jail time and rehabilitation time.

However, repeated rapists should be judged more harshly, as they should have already served jail/rehab time. Again, a team of shrinks should be used to evaluate the rapist.

For something a little different, on the prostitution/indecent exposure thing: The only problem I have with prostitution is STDs. The whole 'selling the body' is crap, IMO. It is their body, let them do what they want with it, as long as it does not restrict others' rights. And it is up to the person whether or not they were involved with prostitution: it is better to get it out front, but not a government issue.

I'm not going to mention stuff about indecent exposure, because I am slightly confused: what exactly are the boundaries of indecent exposure? I mean, there are nudists all around, but they aren't arrested, are they?


As for people who have sexually assaulted, or raped, or molested, etc, they should be punished in the long run for what they did. As Chev said, they should be banished from positions in which they are around children or helpless people alot, such as teaching, military, police force, (un)humane workers, priesthood etc. If they have the opportunity to repeat their offense, they might. And parents who have molested their children should instantly lose custody, and (as Chev said) should not be allowed to regain it. Letting the lamb back into the lion's den is pretty damn stupid, and we should protect those 'lambs' instead of letting them get assaulted.

 

and parents who have molested their children should instantly lose custody, and (as Chev said) should not be allowed to regain it. Letting the lamb back into the lion's den is pretty damn stupid, and we should protect those 'lambs' instead of letting them get assaulted. [/quote]

Just to clarify, I'm in no way implying that children allready victims of child molestation should be given back to their biological (or original adoption) parents, in no circumstances should that be done. However future children should not be automatically taken away.

I agree with the taching, priesthood and so on but the military and police force seem a bit strange since they don't by default interact with children, so what it really boils down to with them is that they are all supposed to be some kind of posterboys of morality, which usually is pretty far from the reality. Simply securing that the man is in duties that don't involve dealing with small children will be enough.

 

Hmm, i am beginning to agree with you about the military and police officers... although they do interact with helpless people, and that gives them the opportunity to rape, if they so choose.

 

I believe that they should be given every opportunity available to repent of what they've done, but incarceration as imposed by the state is part of that repentance process. Further, repeat offenders should face progressively stiffer punishments (If paroled, the remainder of the original sentence then after that the new sentence begins).

I think that future spouses ought to know about these things in a controled manner (one time offender confessing to them). This would mean that the future wife wouldn't find out at some inopportune time...

I do not mean to lessen the severity of these crimes, but this shouldn't permanently screw them over if they will repent and turn their life around...

 

In just about everywhere police officers act in a group of two, you have the younger officer and the senior officer. One can't offend without the other one offending too. In the military it's pretty much the same thing. People in these institutions almost never act alone giving little chance for raping someone. The problem comes when the commanding officers choose to turn a blind eye on the rapes, and that's really an institutional problem more than a problem in certain individuals.

 

What if the junior officers choose to turn a blind eye on what the seniors are doing? Is it really so difficult for the senior officer to get rid of the junior one for a while? That system is no guarantee of anything. Especially if there's a real military operation going on and not just in the time of peace where it's all administration and training. Rape should result in demotion to private soldier and dishonourable discharge, even in the case of a four star general, and it tends to, for all I know. They can repent outside of any position of authority or power. Would you elect a molester president so he could repent of abusing underlings in his previous job? Same thing with appointments. A certain measure of trust, as well as a moral character, is require in some jobs and sex offence convincts don't meet those criteria. In many cases, no convicted offenders of any kind do.

 

I'm generally talking about someone first raping, then sitting in jail, rehabilitating and then wanting to join the army. If the crime is done in the actual job then naturally there should be a shameful discharge and demotion. In most circumstances where you committ a rape you'll be fired from your job and that's completely okay. A fresh start is a fresh start not a return to your old position.

 

Erm, if you're going to go to the extreme of chemically castrating sex offenders, why not just execute them?

It's equally irreversible, after all, but much more...final.

 

It's not the same to make infertile and chemically to castrate. That's two different things. There's an obvious difference between even castration and death. All I want here is to make them infertile so they couldn't impregnate anyone against her will.

 

Well, alright. I was just saying if you were going to do something permanent, might as well think big.

Then again, maybe being made infertile isn't permanent; not exactly a subject I've paid much attention to.

 

There are permanent and impermanent means. The latter tend to carry some risk of permanent complications. Anti-libidiants could help, too, I guess.