Thursday, October 16, 2008

Trick or Treat

Pumpkin symbol marks sex offenders' homes
The immediate thought strikes that making copies of the sticker and putting it on innocent houses would be a better Halloween prank than soaping windows or TPing. And if the offenders have to leave their lights off, how are people going to see the sign?

Government. Is there anything it doesn't do well?

19 comments:

Kent McManigal said...

Be sure and put one on the house of the mayor, the police chief, and any other (non)innocent party you can think of. I mean, they are the bigger danger. Do it "for the children".

Anonymous said...

Child predators are scum. That being said, this reminds me of the yellow stars of David worn by Jews in Nazi occupied Europe.

Ine said predator tpld me that they would go after people like him first, cuz society would deem it acceptable. This would be a test. Then they would come after everyone.

Same could be said for 'reservations'.

DJMooreTX said...

I'm looking forward to folks assuming that if you don't have your lights on, you're a sex offender who's forbidden to have your lights on.

If you can't trust these guys with a bag of candy and a porchlight, what the hell are they doing out of prison?

Kent McManigal said...

You also have to remember that not all the "Law" considers to be child predators, really are. Some simply had sex with their girlfriend who was a few years younger than themselves.

Anonymous said...

Comedian Ron White once commented in one of his skits that he would love to place some of the proposed "molester" signs in his yard... Just to keep that damn kids off the lawn.

Anonymous said...

I stopped once at a very small cafe in Il. and noticed on the wall was stapled about an 11 page list of sex offenders living in the county.

I remarked to the cook/owner, "Damn, you must have a Hell of a lot of bad people in this county to have this many sex offenders in one rural county."

He told me the list was required to be posted,but that it was "bullshit". He said nearly every name on the list was there because some high school boy had sex with his girlfriend and the parents of the girl gamed the law to exact revenge. He said he knew most of the men on the list and almost to a man they had married the girl they were accused of sexually molesting and now had kids, jobs and the normal American life, except for the continual punishment of being a sex offender.

Just like everything else government fucked this up. Does that make them sex offenders?

Mike Gallo said...

I also agree that either:

A) They are a danger to others and should be in prison or
B) What they did is none of our business.

This is one place I hate mainstream "conservatives;" most of them yell "It's for the children" in these cases, which is the same way that modern liberals argue for 99% of their encroachments.

Anonymous said...

A person's felony convictions are a matter of public record, and I have no fucking problem with a public record being kept public.

Especially in these cases.

Plus, I call particular bullshit on the anecdotal "data" about sex offenders marrying their teenaged paramours and therefore being nobody's business but their own.

The S.O.'s in my neighborhood are posted for rape and/or possession of child pornography. Anybody ready to go to bat for those guys?

Kent McManigal said...

I will.

Do you know how easy it is to plant "child pornography" on someone's computer or in their house or car? Even fake stuff that involves no real children at all, like cartoons?

Plus, I have known of men who got in trouble for "rape" when the woman changed her mind afterwards. I have been afraid of suffering that fate a time or two. Or if she was younger than the state requires. REAL rape is an initiation of force: an attack, not a change of heart later.

If these men really attacked someone, they should be punished, not put on a list. As has been said, if these people can't be trusted, they should not be out of prison. Otherwise, once the time is served, leave them alone.

Anonymous said...

"I have been afraid of suffering that fate a time or two."

No kidding?

Why am I not suprised...

The_Chef said...


cranky said...

"I have been afraid of suffering that fate a time or two."

No kidding?

Why am I not suprised...

10/16/2008 9:43 PM

Could you be any more of a pretentious prick?

David Codrea said...

Gentlemen...

Anonymous said...

You can call all the bullshit you want cranky, I just relayed something that really happened and the conversation that took place. I am quite certain that if it happened there, it has happened elsewhere.

I, for one, have not married everybody I had sex with. I bet you didn't either. But to deny that it does happen says more about your hysteria than it does anything else.

I was not attempting to provide statistical data, merely pointing out a "one size fits all" stance is stupid. Context matters. Except to those who are too damn lazy to actually develop a viable code of conduct and ethics to live by.

Anonymous said...

And one other thing, I am sure there were some on that list who really belonged there, but without context, how does one know which are which? Thereby making the list self-defeating, since it warns too much over too little. Sort of like the little boy who cried "wolf!".

Mike Gallo said...

When I was in college, the LaCrosse, WI cops were going door-to-door handing out flyers about an 80-something year old man who had anally raped a very young boy when he was in his early forties. If the statutes say that his crime was worth X years, and he served X years, then he is ready to rejoin society by our own standards. His punishment should not be compounded ex post facto by petty local tyrants putting up signs on his door or scaring all the locals about their childrens' safety.

I personally worked with a man who "knocked up" his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 18, and her parents and the local DA went for the throat. After he was convicted is when the child was found not to be his, but that doesn't change his fate. He is now a child rapist for the rest of his life, and people like cranky want to herd him into a ghetto and relish in how superior they are to such "scum."

The_Chef said...

But what SA and Mike Gallo don't address is that these fascists think they own us. We live or die by the whim of politicians, it's our blood shed for their ideologies. If they own us, they can do as they see fit with us, even after we've paid for what we might have done.

Anonymous said...

chef, I have mentioned that aspect before and I can promise you they don't own me. They may end up owning my corpse if they push too hard, but they will have more than one of which to take possession.

me said...

THIS is a sex offender

http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=122520&article=4429973

THIS IS NOT.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/aug/06/272020/man-shed-sex-offender-status-under-new-romeo-and-j/news-breaking/

It WAS a sex offender case, but thanks to (yet another) law he is spared the lifetime sentence.

I was going to do a big post about it, but I'm too lazy right now...maybe later.

Not all states have the 'Romeo and Juliet' laws so you have a hell of a lot more on the scarlet letter list then you should.

Anonymous said...

SA said:
"He said he knew most of the men... married the girl... now had kids, jobs and the normal American life, except for the continual punishment of being a sex offender.

Just like everything else government fucked this up. Does that make them sex offenders?"


Yes, statutory rape makes one a sex offender--though a good deal less of a menace than a goblin who practices forcible rape. The offenders paid their debt to society, and they're obviously not interested in becoming violent criminals.

However, they are now prohibited persons. The absolutists will see to it that they are marked for life.

Absolutists.

Yup.