![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When exactly does it start being "cruel and unusual" punishment?
Some of you have no doubt heard me rant about the overkill of the way most places treat registered sex offenders.
Well, I just encountered a new one. A friend of mine is one (and no, I thought these things were wrong before I ever met said person).
My friend now has 45 days to move because a neighbor just got approved for a day care center. Lord only knows where my and the person sharing the house with her are , going to get the money to move, much less do first & last month's rent, etc.
Explain to me again how this and all the other BS is *not* extra punishment over and above the sentence passed by the court?
And it's not as if my friend is even *capable* of repeating the offense (physically capable).
And my friend, if you read this, *don't* out yourself.
Well, I just encountered a new one. A friend of mine is one (and no, I thought these things were wrong before I ever met said person).
My friend now has 45 days to move because a neighbor just got approved for a day care center. Lord only knows where my and the person sharing the house with her are , going to get the money to move, much less do first & last month's rent, etc.
Explain to me again how this and all the other BS is *not* extra punishment over and above the sentence passed by the court?
And it's not as if my friend is even *capable* of repeating the offense (physically capable).
And my friend, if you read this, *don't* out yourself.
no subject
However, there are an awful lot of sex offences on the books that shouldn't rate this level of scrutiny; I've heard of people who have had to register as sex offenders simply because they got caught fucking out of doors, or because they had consensual sex with a 14 year old who looked and acted 19 and lied her arse off--and I can't imagine you being friends with someone who actually raped a prepubescent child.
no subject
For what it's worth, if it hadn't been so long ago *I* would be on one of those lists. Not for anything violent just messed up. :-(
My main objections to these are that first off, the same as yours. They include way too many people who shouldn't be on the lists.
Second is that they practically eliminate what chances of "rehabiliation" may exist. If you are going to bear the labekl forever *and* you are subject to this (and worse), then what's the incentive to even *try*?
ps. I'd be rather surprised if there's any sort of aid available. They *charge* parolees for their visits to their PO and the like.
no subject
Raping children is not like stealing, which people do because they have no alternative or they think they can get away with it or a whole host of other reasons that are basically rational, and which harms only property.
It is also not like murder, which is usually committed by relatively sane people as a reaction to a specific set of circumstances that is unlikely to recur.
It is a symptom of a mental illness we do not know how to cure, with which victims are very often "infected" themselves. Until we know how to CURE it, I'm not comfortable letting people who have it run around loose, no matter how well-behaved they have been in a supervised setting, because if they get out of control, they will create more victims, some of whom will grow up to become offenders themselves.
I know it's the common "liberal" belief that all criminals can be rehabilitated but that really is only possible if we know what caused the criminal to become one and can reverse it. The common "liberal" solution is to censor the media, particularly erotic media even if there are no living people in it, as per Australia or Canada, and as you know I'm against that. Why? Because you can write NC17 chanfic for years, and never want to harm a child, and none of your readers will either. Yes, a paedophile might get off on it, but a paedophile is also capable of getting off on the children's underwear section of the Sears Roebuck catalogue.
People who cannot be cured and who have been proven to be dangerous shouldn't be turned loose without supervision. Sorry. They're usually not happy people either. If they were dogs, we would put them down. They're not, so we can't do that, but that doesn't mean I want them living next door to me if there are children in my house. Or even if there aren't, if the person is known for violence against women rather than or as well as children.
I feel very differently about nonviolent sex crimes, like public sex or statutory rape of a consenting and duplicitous minor (one of the reasons I feel that way is that I very nearly fell into that trap myself with a 15 year old boy who looked 22, but thankfully someone warned me in time), or soliciting prostitution. Most of those are things that I either think should not be illegal (prostitution, teenage sex) or that I think should be misdemeanors (I don't think most people want to be subjected to seeing people fuck when they go to the park, I know I don't want to watch anyone doing that unless we have a certain kind of relationship, but that's ANNOYING, not worthy of jail time). And I have a real problem with people who go out and get drunk with the intention of getting laid and then wake up the next morning and regret it and say they were raped. Not all drunk sex is rape. If she's so drunk you can't ask her and she can't answer, that's rape, but if she has beer goggles it's her own damn fault. And there should be help available for people who have to move, but then, I think genuine violent sex criminals probably ought to be living in supervised facilities anyway.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
People like that are mentally ill and dangerous, and they should not be running around loose and unsupervised with no warning to their potential neighbours.
That's the idea behind the sex offender laws, and I agree with it, period, end of story.
The problem isn't that we're not willing to say to a man who has raped 5 kids under 12 "okay, we're going to forget about that now," because that is not something it is EVER appropriate to forget about. Once you've done that, I personally think they should lock you up and throw away the key. But if they need to let you out you should be watched.
However, these laws, which are perfectly appropriate to apply to dangerous persons we don't know how to cure, should NEVER be applied to people who are not dangerous. The problem is not that this law exists and some poor serial rapist never gets to be free to live next door to the girls' dorm again, boo hoo.
The problem is that the puritanical assholes who are currently in charge can't seem to tell the difference between guys who rape women with curling irons and teenagers who flash their tits or gay guys who fuck in the park. There needs to be an understanding that not all sex crimes are alike. Some of them, you really should never, EVER EVER be allowed to run around loose again after. And some of them should be a $100 fine and community service.
no subject
no subject
And you'll note I said that we can't and shouldn't treat them as animals, because they're not. But.
What is the humane thing to do with people who are suffering from a currently incurable disease that compels them to harm others? They cannot be allowed to rejoin human society without supervision. It is unjust to restrict what materials everyone else may read, view, listen to on the grounds that it might set them off. They need to be kept away from that class of persons they are compelled to harm (children, women, elderly people, whatever group it is) and monitored professionally. Perhaps they can lead useful lives; this would be a goodness.
Some of them would no doubt choose suicide over a perpetually monitored existence. I am not an advocate of euthanasia personally, especially not in cases where an unconscious patient can't ask for it, but if we're going to allow doctors to do in their patients (um, did I mention I'm more conservative than most of Shadow's readers? well you probably figured that out by now), I think that paedophilia is definitely one of those currently incurable diseases that interferes with one's quality of life to a sufficient degree that persons who suffer from it might prefer euthanasia.
I don't think that I would choose that.
But I have no idea what it is like to be a paedophile. My sexual orientation is really boring; I prefer to have a single partner of the opposite sex (or at least an opposing gender--I have had at least one terrific crush on an FTM, but he was a man to me) no more than ten years younger or fifteen years older than me. (The number of years older or younger has varied with my age. When I was 14 I only wanted older guys; when I was in my mid thirties I preferred younger men; but at no point during my sexual life have I ever preferred anyone under age except when I myself was within 4 years of that age.)
And I am also one of those people who does not want to have the plug pulled on me, period. As long as people think I might be in there I want them to let me live. If they later do an autopsy and discover that my skull was full of fluid, well, so be it, I certainly wasn't suffering. If I had any incurable disease, I'd stick around as long as I could in the hope of a cure.
YMMV.
no subject
no subject
18 is an INSANE age of consent.
I don't particular care whether the psychosis is sexual in nature or not, if someone is incurably insane in a way that results in them being compelled to commit violent crimes, they should not be allowed to run loose just because they've spent a certain amount of time in jail. But most serial killers do have a sexual component to their crazy.
no subject
no subject
All of my neighbors like me with the exception of 1. Now because of that 1, I must move.
Cayenne
no subject
no subject
Mistress Cayenne
no subject