CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It depends on the offense. There are some people who are sex offenders because of technicalities like having sex with someone who was underage, even when they were both in high school. That shouldn't prohibit those kinds of offenders from gaining custody.
The issue of the sex offender registry is that just about any type of person can be a registered a sex offender. There are children in Middle School who become registered sex offender for celebrating "slap butt" day. I used to do that shit... i was at risk of becoming a sex offender.
As for what Maholinder brought up, this is another issue. In some states, having sex with a 17 year old while you're 18 can make you a registered sex offender.
Clearly, we do not have our priorities correctly lined. I do not support Megan's Law. It is an attack on our privacy and has ruined many lives. If the issue is keeping children away from actual predators, we should focus our resources on taking down actual child rapists and enough with this speculative punishment.
Ideals of "Zero Tolerance" and "The Law is the Law" are counter-productive and examples of totalitarianism.
If they have served the time for their offence, then we have no grounds to refuse sex offenders custody. We have a presumption of innocence, we must assume that someone who has paid his debt to society will follow the law. There should however be checks on the children simply for safety, but we can't refuse custody.
You would support a chid molester leaving prison and getting custody of their children, simply because he did his time? I understand your basic premise of the person paid their debt to society so the slate should be wiped clean. I got it. I agree with that on certain crimes, but not crimes against children.
I know individuals who fit this description and the themselves admit that they should never be left alone with children. Just as a felon cannot own firearms, certain crimes come with life long consequences attached, regardless of the fact that they did their time.
"You would support a chid molester leaving prison and getting custody of their children, simply because he did his time?"
Yes, that is the whole reason for sentencing jail time, inmates being punished in the hopes of becoming law abiding members of society.
" I agree with that on certain crimes, but not crimes against children."
As much as you may not like it, the inmates rights are above your opinion. Sex offenders need to pass a test just to be allowed to live in a populated area. If they pass the test, they have every right to live normal lives. Refusing custody based on past action is wrong.
"I know individuals who fit this description and the themselves admit that they should never be left alone with children."
Good for them that they know their boundaries and limits. Those limits do not apply to, nor should be bound to, other past offenders.
" certain crimes come with life long consequences attached, regardless of the fact that they did their time."
Yes life long consequences can be attached, custody should not be one of them. As I said, we have a legal obligation to uphold the presumption of innocence. Until an action is done, or is suspected of being done, we have no grounds for the refusal of custody to past inmates who have served their time.
So, let me see if I get this straight. An individual molests a child, goes to prison, get's out, molests again, gets out. He did his time for both crimes and you would support that individual getting custody of their children?
I'm sorry, but the evidence to support sex crimes as isolated incidents is scarce to say the least. Statistics show that the vast majority of sex offenders are A. repeat offenders and B. the first victim they get caught with is not their first victim the vast majority of the time; it's just the first time they've been caught and the behavior has been going on for years.
I'm sorry, but I do not have as much faith in humanity as you do. I would love to think that people are naturally good but the world provides too much empirical evidence to the contrary.
Since you apparently believe that people's slates should be wiped clean upon discharge from correctional institutions, let me ask you this. If you don't have children, let's assume you do; would you let a convicted child molester watch your children? Because by your previous statement, their history of child molestation shouldn't matter. I'm sure you are going to say something to the effect of "my children are not theirs and no I would not but my decision to not allow them to watch my children has no bearing on whether or not they should have custody of theirs". If you are saying that then you are having a double standard.
As a society based upon the rule of law, it is our responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves and if a person has a history of child molestation we have a responsibility to ensure that those children have a safe environment in which to be raised. If a person displays behavior which creates a hostile environment for children he/she forfeits their right to have custody of those children. I'm sorry, as a society we must protect the interests of our children.
I agree completely. The mere thought of an convicted child molester looking after my daughter sends chills through me. If it were her Father it would bare no difference, I would never, ever on my life risk my daughters well being like that. I would never, ever subject any child to that risk.
I ask the same question, theoretically, if your wife raped young boys and girls, did her time and then was released would you let her have access to your children, regardless of whether or not they were victims of her abuse?
" An individual molests a child, goes to prison, get's out, molests again, gets out"
A repeated offender receives a bigger sentence, you seem to under estimate what a deterrence jail is.
"He did his time for both crimes and you would support that individual getting custody of their children"
If he is such a repeated offender his kids would be at the age where they can refuse a inmate parents custody by the time he got out. But other then that, yes, I fully believe that we have no grounds to refuse the rights of one who has paid his societal debt.
" but the evidence to support sex crimes as isolated incidents is scarce to say the least"
That is not grounds for intruding ones rights by any means.
"I'm sorry, but I do not have as much faith in humanity as you do."
I have no faith in humanity, with my belief in the presumption of innocence comes the total upholdal of a determent prison system.
"I would love to think that people are naturally good"
Im a capitalist, my entire view of the world sprouts from the belief man is inherently self servant.
"Since you apparently believe that people's slates should be wiped clean upon discharge from correctional institutions"
I do not think the slate should be wiped clean, repeat offenders deserve much longer sentences. I believe in the presumption of innocence.
Before I address the following I'll address this to remove the statements viability.
" If you are saying that then you are having a double standard."
Its in no way a double standard, the two are entirely unrelated rights and connecting the two makes no logical sense as one retains to the inmates rights the other applies to my own, and the light in which the rights are viewed is in no way connected.
"If you don't have children, let's assume you do; would you let a convicted child molester watch your children?"
Me having the right to choose who I employ is not in any way relevant to the rights of inmates to have custody. I have legal grounds to deny my employment to anyone I wish, there is no legal grounds to deny a past offender with no medical diagnosis.
" Because by your previous statement, their history of child molestation shouldn't matter"
In the ways of legal rights, it doesn't.
"As a society based upon the rule of law, it is our responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves"
Rule of law, correct. And the most important rule in our legal proceedings is presumption of innocence.
"we have a responsibility to ensure that those children have a safe environment in which to be raised"
A past inmate who has served time in no way constitutes an unsafe environment unless shown too.
"f a person displays behavior which creates a hostile environment for children he/she forfeits their right to have custody of those children"
This would apply to one who isn't a molester as well.
"I'm sorry, as a society we must protect the interests of our children."
As a society we have to protect the legal laws we as a society have given ourselves. Rights are the founding societal ideals.
You can't bank on the possibility that a repeat offender gets a bigger sentence. Why take the chance.
You do not take into account that mistakes that are made in our court systems across the country. Morality changes with society...and we have liberal judges who will let anyone out just like you would.
I personally think if judge allows a criminal out especially before his time is up, he or she should be held accountable. You takes risks no parent would ever take risks if they care for their child...you value the law and presumtion of innocence before the possibilty that said person could do it again. That is insane.
You probably disagree with the present system that sex offenders must register and you can find them in your neighborhood.
You have faith in the humanity of the prisoner getting out...in this case the sex offender. You have faith in the presumtion of innocent but don't get the fact that people have a tendancy for some crimes to do them over and over again...sex offences are one such crime...as is DUI offenses. Would you allow your child to ride in a car of someone who served two offenses for DUI?
Ah nice to see you branched out to this posts, I apologize for insulting you for not doing so on another posts on this board.
"You can't bank on the possibility that a repeat offender gets a bigger sentence. Why take the chance."
Because we have a legal obligation to.
"You do not take into account that mistakes that are made in our court systems across the country. "
What does that have to do with my stance? I belief in the presumption of innocence, the ground rule for our entire legal system.We cant sacrifice our core ideal because of what may.
" Morality changes with society...and we have liberal judges who will let anyone out just like you would"
Did you not see my statement on this? I belief in a true deterrent system. They aren't hard enough in prison.
"you value the law and presumtion of innocence before the possibilty that said person could do it again. That is insane."
You say holding our law to its standing is insane?
"You probably disagree with the present system that sex offenders must register and you can find them in your neighborhood."
No I like that system, I believe people have a right see know whats around them.
"You have faith in the humanity of the prisoner getting out."
Again, you have not read my stance on that.
"You have faith in the presumtion of innocent but don't get the fact that people have a tendancy for some crimes to do them over and over again."
I do get it, but that doesn't change the standing of our laws. We have a presumption of innocence of crime. We have NO legal grounds to deny ones custody if no immediate threat is posed.
"
Would you allow your child to ride in a car of someone who served two offenses for DUI?"
Another question that poses for a relevant one in the hopes of establishing a double standard between two completely unrelated subjects. Thats what liberals do churchmouse, be careful.
Why don't you make exceptions to protect your children? You honestly would trust a sex offender with your children...? Come on.....Casey Anthony got off scott free. Did she do it....the jury thinks so but did not convict her because they said it was not beyond the shadow of a doubt. With that said....our laws say she is innocent. I don't buy it. And I certainly would not allow her anywhere near someone I loved. We as citizens have the right to also judge...for ourselves apart from the law.
You say they are not hard enough on criminals in prisons. Could you elaborate on this a bit. What do you think needs to be done there. I am sure you are not for torture and would fight for their human rights.So what do you mean it needs to be harder, tougher?
Now you said that if someone paid the penalty for their crime that when they get out...they should get another shot. But you now say that the current system that singles criminals out who have served their sentence by identifying their address and shows their picture is ok. This goes against what you said.
If they are not a threat and have served their time.......then why are you for the current system?
Why won't you answer the question about allowing your child to ride in a car with someone who served his sentence for DUI? I think its the same circumstance. They were guilty they served their time..........they are starting over...just like sex offenders.
"You honestly would trust a sex offender with your children...?"
I never said I would, I never said I wouldn't. And I won't say wither because its irrelevant, my rights have nothing to do with the subject.
"Casey Anthony got off scott free."
Casey Anthony is innocent. She was tried in a court of law and a jury of her peers saw her not guilty. As much as you may disagree, Casey Anthony is now innocent. Your opinions on the matter mean less then nothing.
"You say they are not hard enough on criminals in prisons."
Yes the system could be more deterrent.
"Could you elaborate on this a bit. What do you think needs to be done there. "
The death sentence needs to replace the life without parole(but not for cases with only circumstantial evidence). Cell conditions need to be in a more frightening fashion, like the prisons of 60 years ago. I could go on but all in all I think the system needs to fulfill its role of deterrence out much more effectively.
"they should get another shot. "
Yes they regain societal rights.
"But you now say that the current system that singles criminals out who have served their sentence by identifying their address and shows their picture is ok. This goes against what you said."
It doesn't go against it in any way. The people have a right to know whats around them, that right is not related to the inmates right of custody and isn't even the same type of legal department. Two different rights churchmouse.
"If they are not a threat and have served their time.......then why are you for the current system"
Because just as I respect a past offenders rights, I respect the rights available to the people around them.
"Why won't you answer the question about allowing your child to ride in a car with someone who served his sentence for DUI?"
Because that's all you people on voting no on this debate are doing, asking unconnected questions that are completely irrelevant in the hopes of establishing some sort of connection but when in reality there is none. I have answered like 4 similar questions already. Whether or not I choose what the inmate does to MY children has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the inmates custody rights. Get that through you hollow skull.
I know the law comes down with verdicts but I still have to go by my gut instinct and weigh the evidence for myself. Juries have been mistaken and this is one time where they are. This country will never accept Casey Anthony period...she will have to hide and change her identity. People have a right to discern for themselves. As I said the jury said they all felt she was guilty...but they did not have enough evidence. This was the perfect crime. The law says she is innocent yes...so what? We also could have come up with a completly different jury panel and they could have come down with a guilty verdict.
And while you keep saying opinions don't matter...we all here are using bias, opinion, the truth based on our own idividual worldview to debate. Sure we look for the facts...but throwing two cents in on a topic is not all that bad. These are not formal debate that I have seen thus far on here.....more discussions.
You say when a person pays the penalty for the crime, they should recieve the rights society has to give them. They are innocent....what happened in the past, over and forgotten. So again....your not logical when you say that...having their faces and exact address plastered all over a site that reveals who sex offenders are is ok. You said they should start over. Is that anyway to start over? That is saying you were a sex offender and you still could be a threat...so we are going to single you out. Come on.
This goes against everything you said about being tried by peers convicted paying the penalty and then being set free....free being starting over. You said Casey Anthony is innocent...and not a threat. Why then should sex offenders still live like they are guilty?
You wont answer questions because in this there is no way out for you. Your back is against the wall...and if you answered how you felt....this would go against the debate and your position on it. My example about DUI....has everything to do with this debate...its the same kind of circumstance. You just don't have the guts to answer it...would not flatter your hard nosed worldview. My question was connected.
And I always know I got someone when they start to swear and call names....thanks.
"As I said the jury said they all felt she was guilty...but they did not have enough evidence. "
If enough evidence isn't present, then we have no right to punish Anthony because of what we think may be true.
".so what?"
So...........she's innocent.
"And while you keep saying opinions don't matter"
I am not saying that, I have my own opinion. My basis for it is the legal system. I agree and believe in the legal system.
" They are innocent....what happened in the past, over and forgotten."
Not forgotten, simply not put into a light that interferes with the inmates rights.
"So again....your not logical when you say that...having their faces and exact address plastered all over a site that reveals who sex offenders are is ok."
No, your not logical for connecting two unrelated rights and acting like they mean anything to each other.
"his goes against everything you said about being tried by peers convicted paying the penalty and then being set free."
Nothing I have said has been contradictory.
"Why then should sex offenders still live like they are guilty?"
I don't see whats so hard to understand here: past offenders deserve their rights, and the people around them deserve theirs. The rights in question have NOTHING to do with one another, and you have yet to even try to defend that they do. And about Anthony, she doesn't deserve to be punished for something we can't prove she did. That's like punishing a three year old because we THINK he stole something but cannot prove.
"You wont answer questions because in this there is no way out for you. "
Are you insane? I have pointed out several times the irrelevance in the questions posed by you and the other people on this discussion. The questions deal with MY rights, not the rights of the past offenders.
"and if you answered how you felt....this would go against the debate and your position on it"
Actually no, what I feel is irrelevant, as I believe the law is above what I feel.
"has everything to do with this debate...its the same kind of circumstance."
It has nothing to do with this debate, and like I have said, it has nothing to do with the inmates rights, its just asking me about my own. How is my rights relevant to the rights of offenders? You are obviously too dim to see the problem in the questions you pose.
"My question was connected."
Not in any logical or relevant way it wasn't.
"And I always know I got someone when they start to swear and call names....thanks."
You got me alright. You got me irritated by forcing me to bear with your stupidity by taking advantage of my unwillingness to let you have the last word. In what sense of the word do you claim victory? I have a basis. You have nothing but interpretative values which change person from person and have extreme variability. Sorry, but if you think you have the slightest edge of an argument you are sadly wrong.
So when you get irritated you start calling names? How adult is that. You might tick me off, bash me...I will never stoop to calling names. That is juvenile behavior.
We both are interpreting this based on our own ideas with bias. I get what you are saying about when a person is found innocent, they are innocent BUT only in the eyes of the law. That does not mean however that truth prevailed, because guilty people go free all the time. OJ walked away. People watched the trial and the evidence they had on him was enourmous. People watched the Anthony trial and saw the evidence they had. It all depends on the make up of the jury. Thats why when the are selected its important to get jurors on that go by the evidence that is there. They didn't have half the evidence on Scott Peterson that they did on Casey Anthony...and they found him guilty.
You said....that when people served their time for whatever the offense, they should leave prison with a clean slate. My point....sex offenders do not leave with a clean slate. They are singled out and put on display. This goes against the statement you made.
Why is it important to have the last word for crying out loud? If you want the last word go ahead...its not that big of a deal to me really. I come here to debate and share my opinions about topics....its not a game for me point wise like it is for many here.
So go ahead and have the last word if it makes you feel good...but I for one won't call names....I'll leave that to you.
"So when you get irritated you start calling names?"
Names? I berated your intelligence, and with a basis. If you want to discredit that as mindless insults then go ahead .
"That does not mean however that truth prevailed, because guilty people go free all the time"
There is no such thing as absolute truth in such matters, only interpretative. Since interpretative truth isn't credible in this issue in my eyes, I choose to believe in the legal system.
"They didn't have half the evidence on Scott Peterson that they did on Casey Anthony...and they found him guilty."
And if the jury had found Anthony guilty, i'd be saying she's guilty. One who is found innocent besides what the interpretative truth is in your eyes is still innocent, which is why I leave matters of guilt and innocence to be decided entirely by legal proceedings. That's the reason they're there. I could get into what I personally believe, but it would have no constructive effect so I direct thought to other areas.
"that when people served their time for whatever the offense, they should leave prison with a clean slate"
No, I said societal rights are regained and legal discrimination cannot be allowed. A clean slate would be saying the actions never happened, which is not what im advocating.
" This goes against the statement you made."
Im getting quite tired of pointing out the difference between the rights of the offender and those around him.
"Why is it important to have the last word for crying out loud?"
Not important for the mere purpose of getting the last word but for the purpose of not allowing idiocy to be the last thing people view.
" I come here to debate and share my opinions about topics....its not a game for me point wise like it is for many here."
I don't care about points much, no reward is available for them.
" but I for one won't call names....I'll leave that to you"
Deal, I'll be the one with an actual basis for my argument and call names, and you will be humble and analytic in your debates.
I'm sorry but I completely disagree. Would you really want to risk a child's well being on the hope that a sentence has 'changed' the criminal. The prison sentences in the UK are pathetic. Child molesters get as little as 3 years. As much as some may change their life view, for many pedophilia is an illness they cannot control, they are sexually attracted to children. For a child to come into contact with an ex offender is a risk. Why would you even remotely risk, no matter how small the risk may now be, a child being molested?
"Would you really want to risk a child's well being on the hope that a sentence has 'changed' the criminal."
What I hope for is irrelevant. In the US we have a legal presumption of innocence. Unless a crime is being committed or in suspicion of being committed, we have a legal obligation to uphold the the rights of inmate(who has paid his debt to society in full).
" Child molesters get as little as 3 years"
You have a problem with your countries laws? Join the legislator branch.
" for many pedophilia is an illness they cannot control, they are sexually attracted to children"
Like I said in my reply, tests are taken simply to allow inmates to be allowed back into a populace. If a medical diagnosis is a given that the inmate has no mental illness relating to children, we have NO legal grounds to deny and intrude on ones rights. An option however is a child over 13 years old can choose which parent to live with, and in cases brought by jail time, the child has the right to deny a parents custody.
" is a risk"
Simply living is a risk. We can't deny ones rights simply because they can.
"Why would you even remotely risk, no matter how small the risk may now be, a child being molested?"
Because I am aware that rights are the most important aspect of a populace's societal impact. Intruding on ones rights without legal grounds cannot be done.
WE also make them register and tell authorities where they are living. They do this for a very good reason.
I looked up the other day in my area (because I have grandbabys and i wanted to know) how many registered sex offenders lives in my area. I had over one hundred in a five mile radius...and one in my neighborhood. If you google registered sex offenders you can pictures of them, and their exact address. These people have already served their sentences...but obviously our government believes they are still a threat.
"These people have already served their sentences...but obviously our government believes they are still a threat."
i'd appreciate a much more full debate if your going to bother responding to me. So what if they are checked? This is done for people to be aware of whats around them. It has no impact on ones custody rights.
You said that if a criminal serves his sentence...that when he gets out he should be starting over. How can he start over if his picture and address are pastered all over the site for registered sex offenders? This makes no sense according to what you say.
What business is it of anyones if someone has served his sentence? Should all criminals then have to register where ever they live? Drug dealers don't have too...why should sex offenders?
"that when he gets out he should be starting over."
Jesus churchmouse you are really a bad reader. I never said he slate is clean, I said that ine regains his societal rights. people still have the right to know whats around them.
"This makes no sense according to what you say."
It makes sense, your just too dim to actually comprehend my stance on separate issues on this case.
"Should all criminals then have to register where ever they live? Drug dealers don't have too...why should sex offenders?"
Actually all criminals are registered. All one has to do his pay close attention to available local records.
What I hope for is irrelevant. In the US we have a legal presumption of innocence. Unless a crime is being committed or in suspicion of being committed, we have a legal obligation to uphold the the rights of inmate(who has paid his debt to society in full).
If this were the case then why do employers have the right to ask for previous convictions and perform criminal record checks on people? And then refuse them a job based on previous convictions. The same should uphold for child protection, a convicted child molester almost certainly would not be granted a job at a nursery, why should they be granted access to their children? They sacrificed their right to be trusted and placed as the guardian of children when they abused that right and took away a child's innocence with the potential to ruin their life forever.
Like I said in my reply, tests are taken simply to allow inmates to be allowed back into a populace. If a medical diagnosis is a given that the inmate has no mental illness relating to children, we have NO legal grounds to deny and intrude on ones rights.
These checks aren't accurate nor guaranteed. I claimed I was fine to get released from a mental institution, I wasn't and threw myself in front of a car. Their mental health evaluation missed the mark and they bought into my manipulative lies. If a convicted child molester were facing release they probably wouldn't admit to an urge to re-offend.
An option however is a child over 13 years old can choose which parent to live with, and in cases brought by jail time, the child has the right to deny a parents custody.
That applies for a small age range of children. That's 13 different ages with no say.
Simply living is a risk. We can't deny ones rights simply because they can.
I'm fully aware of that, but this is a heightened and aware risk.
Because I am aware that rights are the most important aspect of a populace's societal impact. Intruding on ones rights without legal grounds cannot be done.
I refer back to my employment argument.
You failed to answer my theoretical question regarding a spouse who raped children. Would you let them, upon release, have custody of your children or want them to? I assume you don't have children, because I would take a rather take a bullet then let anything like that come in the way of harm of my daughter.
"If this were the case then why do employers have the right to ask for previous convictions and perform criminal record checks on people?"
An employers rights have NOTHING to do with a past inmates custody rights.
"They sacrificed their right to be trusted and placed as the guardian of children when they abused that right and took away a child's innocence with the potential to ruin their life forever"
And they regained their societal rights when they paid their debt to society.
"I wasn't and threw myself in front of a car. Their mental health evaluation missed the mark and they bought into my manipulative lies. If a convicted child molester were facing release they probably wouldn't admit to an urge to re-offend."
You have a lacking faith in medical examination. Its not as easy as your suggesting and people who handle these things are well trained. Most recessed urges reappear only after being released. DESPITE that however, the LEGAL obligation to trust ones presumption of innocence has more ground then ones fear of what may.
"That applies for a small age range of children. That's 13 different ages with no say"
That 13 years of age where their say in legal matters isn't respected anyway, regardless of the matter.
"but this is a heightened and aware risk."
I never said they should just be left alone with the children, daily checks are necessary to make sure the children are in a safe environment. Just like people should be allowed to see offenders in their area, authorities need to be aware of lawful action.
"I refer back to my employment argument"
The one with no relevant basis?
"You failed to answer my theoretical question regarding a spouse who raped children"
Because I have answered two similar question with the same result. The ONLY reason one spouse has power over the other in this case is if the spouse had raped their own children.
" Would you let them, upon release, have custody of your children or want them to?"
What I would let them do is irrelevant. What the law allows him is the ultimate decider.
"I assume you don't have children, because I would take a rather take a bullet then let anything like that come in the way of harm of my daughter"
An employers rights have NOTHING to do with a past inmates custody rights.
Well they do considering most jobs applied for ask for previous convictions which candidates are obliged to answer due to the application disclosure signing. Especially in government sector jobs where criminal background checks are carried out particularly in the case of vulnerable people such as children. Which is when previous convictions are allowed to be scrutinized by law.
And they regained their societal rights when they paid their debt to society.
Ask the victim if the debt is suitable to the lifetime trauma they are subjected to.
You have a lacking faith in medical examination. Its not as easy as your suggesting and people who handle these things are well trained. Most recessed urges reappear only after being released. DESPITE that however, the LEGAL obligation to trust ones presumption of innocence has more ground then ones fear of what may.
A justified lack. You assume most recessed urges appear after release but you have no evidence to suggest that they did not always had those urges and lied to gain release before re offending.
That 13 years of age where their say in legal matters isn't respected anyway, regardless of the matter.
So if a ten year old says 'no I don't want to see daddy he raped little girls' it would not be respected. Nice one.
I never said they should just be left alone with the children, daily checks are necessary to make sure the children are in a safe environment. Just like people should be allowed to see offenders in their area, authorities need to be aware of lawful action.
Custody of a child and limited access are two different things. Seeing a child in an controlled and monitored environment, such as an access centre, is not gaining custody. To gain custody is to have main guardianship of the child.
The one with no relevant basis?
Of course it has relevant basis. If an employer has a legal right to refuse employment based on previous convictions when applying for a job working with vulnerable people such as children then it bares much relevance.
What I would let them do is irrelevant. What the law allows him is the ultimate decider
Would you happy with that decision? That's what I was aiming for with want. Baring in mind this an argument about custody not controlled access.
"I assume you don't have children, because I would take a rather take a bullet then let anything like that come in the way of harm of my daughter"
Good for you. Doesn't change the law's standing.
I just laughed because I clearly had too much wine when I said 'I would take rather take '.
"Well they do considering most jobs applied for ask for previous convictions "
Because employers have that right. They have had that right for quite some time. One's rights to chose who he or she employs has absolutely no connection to a past offenders custody rights. The two are separate legal departments.
"Ask the victim if the debt is suitable to the lifetime trauma they are subjected to."
If the victim's opinion mattered most offenders would never be released.
"ou assume most recessed urges appear after release but you have no evidence to suggest that they did not always had those urges and lied to gain release before re offending."
You have no evidence to the contrary. Most molesters of children were sexually abused themselves. The reason behind many molesters' actions is that they never received help for their instability. Many receive that help in prison and are actually rehabilitated until they no longer receive help or are overwhelmed by being put into a populace. A better solution then refusing one's custody therefor removing a motivating reason to be productive would be to enhance therapy and or effective methods to easing the stress an offender feels after being put back into society.
"So if a ten year old says 'no I don't want to see daddy he raped little girls' it would not be respected. Nice one"
A ten year old is not old enough to understand aspects of the world well enough to have a respectable opinion. It's the same reason we don't allow them to vote or choose parental custody based on spousal abuse before the age of 13.
"Custody of a child and limited access are two different things"
I know, im not advocating limited custody. I said there should be checks, perhaps one every couple months to analyse the environment and the state of the child. Main or joint custody would still belong to the past offender.
" If an employer has a legal right to refuse employment based on previous convictions when applying for a job working with vulnerable people such as children then it bares much relevance."
No, it has no relevance because it concerns the rights of the employer, not the offender. This is about the OFFENDER'S rights.
"Would you happy with that decision? That's what I was aiming for with want. Baring in mind this an argument about custody not controlled access"
Would I be happy? Yes, because my stance on the matter is founded on my believe in the legal proceedings.
"I just laughed because I clearly had too much wine when I said 'I would take rather take '."
I never drink while on the computer, made the mistake once and made a quite damaging facebook post.
For once I totally agree with you. A child's well being should come first. How many murderers get out of prison and murder again? Sex addiction is something different...and most time the urges never go away. Our laws in the states are terrible as well.
I wonder if libertarian would allow his little girl or boy...to be babysat by a man who had just gotten out of prison for sex abuse...?
God help libertarians son or daughter if he would premit this. And should it happen, he should be held liable.
If you draw issue with our laws, then join the legislation, although im not sure anyone would want you in it.
"I wonder if libertarian would allow his little girl or boy...to be babysat by a man who had just gotten out of prison for sex abuse...?"
If you had the slightest bit of interest in my stance you would have read my posts on this discussion and you would have seen my answer to that question posed by someone else.
"God help libertarians son or daughter if he would premit this."
He who does not exist please help churchmouse's grandchildren, they have little chance of becoming intelligent members of society with a role model like her.
One would think that is true...but it's not. It is not at all uncommon for convicted sex offenders with child victims to get a few months in jail, work release, and probation. Unfortunately, this is a problem that needs to be addressed. In my job as a CP worker, we see sex offenders with child victims get lighter sentences than people convicted of writing bad checks...
It depends on what the offense is. When people think of sex offenders, for some reason, they'll automatically think of child molesters. Sex offenders are also comprised of teenagers getting caught "sexting," prostitutes and their Joes, and people urinating in public.
"Sex offender" is a very broad topic that shouldn't have a blanket law draped across it. It would harm a vast majority of people, more-so than for those it was intended to protect. For example, if a teenager was caught sexting with another teenager, this means that teenager, who was caught, would be charged with child pornography, which means that they would need to register as a sex offender for the rest (or a vast majority) of their lives. This means they wouldn't be able to have a child, once they leave prison, and would basically be banned from living in a city. Anyone see how wrong that would be?
"Sex offense" is an extremely sticky topic that deserves many different definitions in its cases and circumstances.
It depends completely upon the offence. If it is indeed something major, then no they should not assuming they have not changed (If they even could.) If it is however something much lighter like accidentally having sex with someone underage when you were told they were not so young then yes it should be allowed. While with the minor causes to be labeled a sex offender they should have checked into things a tad more it should not prohibit them from taking custody of children.
I am going to say no and add a caveat. It depends upon the crime. If the person was incarcerated for child molestation then obviously no. It would be ridiculous, to say the least, to put children back in harms way claiming that the person has paid their debt to society. You don't take a recovering alcoholic and put a beer in front of them. When a person breaks the law, regardless of time served, there are life-long repercussions.
There are many crimes that get the "tag" sex crime. The person could have been 19 and slept with a 17 year old. The parents got ticked off and pressed charges and now that person is labeled a sex offender for the rest of their life.
The problem is with the vagueness of sex laws, born or puritan bs plaguing our judicial system.
A child molester in the real sense, as in an actual adult with an actual child should never get custody.
Most registered "sex offenders" are 19 year olds or 18 year olds who had sex with a sophomore or freshman their senior year. That's retarded and a tragic miscarriage of justice, and if it were not for all the idiot voters who just need to hear the word "sex" to vote "no" maybe we could change some of these injustices in our system.