Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Megan's Laws - Out of Control?

1235»

Posts

  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    By the way, apparently only 29% of child molesters are relatives. That's a high enough number, but far from the majority I made it out to be. That said, the number is likely skewed by the smaller odds of a crime by a parent or relative being reported.

    Although only 7% are strangers.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm curious to know how they could have gathered those numbers, but if that is the case then we really need to place a higher emphasis on encouraging adults to report these incidents.

    I would presume by asking the molested children once they grow up and are more open about it, assuming they don't kill themselves before that happens.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm not even sure what your point is, at this point.

    I have NOTHING against schools telling kids to be wary. I'm not arguing AGAINST that.

    You stated that informing kids about molestation was a parental responsibility and then said that the schools shouldn't be expected to parent. Hopefully you can see how that gave me the wrong impression.

    By the way, apparently only 29% of child molesters are relatives. That's a high enough number, but far from the majority I made it out to be. That said, the number is likely skewed by the smaller odds of a crime by a parent or relative being reported.

    I made my statement in response to a statement of yours that seemed to want to place the primary responsibility on the schools.

    Kids are getting molested and worse before they even reach school, in some cases. They are also only in school eight hours a day, nine months out of the year. We shouldn't leave important lessons ONLY to schools. I have no issue with schools reinforcing these messages, but parents need to be involved in their children's lives and safety, not just pawning the job off on to school or television.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm curious to know how they could have gathered those numbers, but if that is the case then we really need to place a higher emphasis on encouraging adults to report these incidents.

    I would presume by asking the molested children once they grow up and are more open about it, assuming they don't kill themselves before that happens.

    is that pure presumption, or did they state methods?

    I'm not questioning your numbers. I'm just stating, as an aside, that it seems to be a pretty difficult thing to get an accurate read on.

    georgersig.jpg
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm curious to know how they could have gathered those numbers, but if that is the case then we really need to place a higher emphasis on encouraging adults to report these incidents.

    I would presume by asking the molested children once they grow up and are more open about it, assuming they don't kill themselves before that happens.

    is that pure presumption, or did they state methods?

    I'm not questioning your numbers. I'm just stating, as an aside, that it seems to be a pretty difficult thing to get an accurate read on.

    Pure presumption.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    By the way, apparently only 29% of child molesters are relatives. That's a high enough number, but far from the majority I made it out to be. That said, the number is likely skewed by the smaller odds of a crime by a parent or relative being reported.

    Although only 7% are strangers.

    in theory, a sex offender registry wouldn't really do anything about that 7% anyway.

    the theoretical purpose of it is to keep pedos away from places where they would be exposed to children. Neighbors and janitors at school and bus drivers and the like aren't strangers.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm not even sure what your point is, at this point.

    I have NOTHING against schools telling kids to be wary. I'm not arguing AGAINST that.

    You stated that informing kids about molestation was a parental responsibility and then said that the schools shouldn't be expected to parent. Hopefully you can see how that gave me the wrong impression.

    By the way, apparently only 29% of child molesters are relatives. That's a high enough number, but far from the majority I made it out to be. That said, the number is likely skewed by the smaller odds of a crime by a parent or relative being reported.

    I made my statement in response to a statement of yours that seemed to want to place the primary responsibility on the schools.

    Kids are getting molested and worse before they even reach school, in some cases. They are also only in school eight hours a day, nine months out of the year. We shouldn't leave important lessons ONLY to schools. I have no issue with schools reinforcing these messages, but parents need to be involved in their children's lives and safety, not just pawning the job off on to school or television.

    I never said that we should ONLY leave important lessons to schools. That's absurd, since you can't very well stop parents from giving lessons of their own.

    Conversely, you can't force parents to give all the talks they're meant to give either. So, to me, saying parents should be primarily responsible isn't so much saying that parents should do more (parents are going to do whatever they want, regardless of expectations) and instead simply means that schools should do less, since that's the only change that can come from a "Parents First" policy.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    By the way, apparently only 29% of child molesters are relatives. That's a high enough number, but far from the majority I made it out to be. That said, the number is likely skewed by the smaller odds of a crime by a parent or relative being reported.

    Although only 7% are strangers.

    in theory, a sex offender registry wouldn't really do anything about that 7% anyway.

    the theoretical purpose of it is to keep pedos away from places where they would be exposed to children. Neighbors and janitors at school and bus drivers and the like aren't strangers.

    Neighbors have to personally notify people that they're sex offenders when they move in and employees have to undergo background checks, so this theoretical purpose is already better served elsewhere.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    okay, this is just stupid semantics now

    we misunderstood each other. whatever. there's no need to fight about that

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    By the way, apparently only 29% of child molesters are relatives. That's a high enough number, but far from the majority I made it out to be. That said, the number is likely skewed by the smaller odds of a crime by a parent or relative being reported.

    Although only 7% are strangers.

    in theory, a sex offender registry wouldn't really do anything about that 7% anyway.

    the theoretical purpose of it is to keep pedos away from places where they would be exposed to children. Neighbors and janitors at school and bus drivers and the like aren't strangers.

    Neighbors have to personally notify people that they're sex offenders when they move in, and employees have to undergo background checks.

    Neighbors have to personally notify people AS A PART of the sex offender registry. That is one of it's benefits.

    As for employees, you might be surprised (and a little upset) to discover that background checks are not universal. I spent much of my teen years and early twenties working in various childcare fields, and while most of my employers put me through background checks and fingerprinting, there were a couple who did not. And I was directly responsible for watching the children, suggesting that folks who might interact with the kids once or twice per day (such as bus drivers and janitors) mights have background checks performed on them less often. Add in the idea of contracting and outsourcing, and you might even end up with schools/camps/daycares who background check all of their direct hires, but assume that their contractors are checking their own people, and who knows if the contractors really are?



    There really is no denying that there is SOME level of benefit to the registry. The question is whether or not it is possible to somehow derive that benefit without incurring all of the societal costs that the registry currently has.

    georgersig.jpg
  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Wait, can you even be removed from the sex offender list? People in this thread say you're branded for life.

    It's a state by state thing. Some are more lenient or capable of striking things from the record.

    It may also depend on the offense. A first time or minor offense may get X years on the list, while violent or repeat offenders may be on it for life.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So why are parents more worried about some stranger abducting and raping their child than they are about their kid being paralyzed in a car accident or dying young from heart disease because all their food has twice the cholesterol that it should, when those are thousands of times more likely to be a real issue?
    Same reason a terrorist attack sends us into a national fury when thousands of people die every day from smoking. Well, not exactly the same reason. But human cruelty touches a nerve much more so than accidents or diseases or our own choices.

    Anyway, it's easy to understand why we have such a scope creep on Mgan's Laws. They are laws, meaning a judge doesn't get to ignore it. A judge can't convict someone of X, where X is a registry offense, but then say that you don't go on the registry. And often a judge must convict you of X if A, B, and C are involved in the case.

    So, public nudity: what if a guy flashes a playground of kids? What if a drunk teenager celebrating a sports victory goes streaking and happens run down a street that is within 300 yards of an elementary school? Can you legislate the difference? You will always either A) fail to register people who show commit crimes that indicate a dangerous mental condition and then later they kill someone, or B) catch some dolphins in your tuna-net registry.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Yar wrote: »
    So, public nudity: what if a guy flashes a playground of kids? What if a drunk teenager celebrating a sports victory goes streaking and happens run down a street that is within 300 yards of an elementary school? Can you legislate the difference?

    Do you need to in a system with appropriate repercussions? Does either act deserve any life changing consequences? I realize it was only an example, but the gravity of the consequences is usually a good enough reason to raise complexity where necessary and if you're going to have something as crazy as Megan's law, you may need to go the extra mile to differentiate between pretty much everything.
    You will always either A) fail to register people who show commit crimes that indicate a dangerous mental condition and then later they kill someone, or B) catch some dolphins in your tuna-net registry.

    The first is one huge ass hyperbole and the second is something that smart people through history have disagreed with as an argument behind legislative action.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    zeeny wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    So, public nudity: what if a guy flashes a playground of kids? What if a drunk teenager celebrating a sports victory goes streaking and happens run down a street that is within 300 yards of an elementary school? Can you legislate the difference?

    Do you need to in a system with appropriate repercussions? Does either act deserve any life changing consequences? I realize it was only an example, but the gravity of the consequences is usually a good enough reason to raise complexity where necessary and if you're going to have something as crazy as Megan's law, you may need to go the extra mile to differentiate between pretty much everything.
    You will always either A) fail to register people who show commit crimes that indicate a dangerous mental condition and then later they kill someone, or B) catch some dolphins in your tuna-net registry.

    The first is one huge ass hyperbole and the second is something that smart people through history have disagreed with as an argument behind legislative action.

    Isnt there an issue where registered criminals have been caught committing crimes, because the registry is so huge the police cant properly track all of them anyways? So it brings us back to needing to pare it down to only those likely to re-offend, and people in that state, really shouldnt have been released in the first place if you can help it.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • sonopoverasonopovera Registered User new member
    mrflippy wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What does Megan think about all this?

    Not much.
    Spoiler:

    my question is: what does Megan's mother think of this??? since she is the one who neglected her child knowing there was a sex offender in the town, I am not saying the sex offender is not responsible for his/her actions but the parent needs to keep a close watch on their child/children. Nobody ever molested any of my children.

  • CindersCinders You’re either ready to reap this freaky-assed harvest or you’re not. Registered User regular
    sonopovera wrote: »
    mrflippy wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What does Megan think about all this?

    Not much.
    Spoiler:

    my question is: what does Megan's mother think of this??? since she is the one who neglected her child knowing there was a sex offender in the town, I am not saying the sex offender is not responsible for his/her actions but the parent needs to keep a close watch on their child/children. Nobody ever molested any of my children.

    Don't victim blame.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Also get off your high horse. You are no perfect parent or paragon on how to raise kids so stop acting like you are.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Why did you post in a four year old thread?

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    I mean, really, the guy who raped and killed Megan Kanka just shouldn't have been released from prison. He'd already sexually assaulted very young girls twice before.

    sig.png
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Anyway since this thread is back up I recently heard the radio version of this story about Florida's sex offender laws causing a huge transient population of homeless sex offenders which seems like something a state wouldn't want and how some are trying to find places for these people to live.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23063492

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
    Feral
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Super Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative Jacobkosh. Closing thread...

1235»
This discussion has been closed.