Tracking sex offenders

[Miss Chicken]

We have one person on the sex register in Tasmania whose only crime was that the police found a digital copy of The Pearl on his computer. The computer was stolen and recovered by the police. The police decided for some reason to look though the man's entire porn collection and this was the only file that they could find that could be seen as being illegal.

It is an erotic book written in the 19th and the is some underaged teenage sexual behaviour depicted in it. However at the time it was written it was legal for 13 year old girls to have sex.

This book is available in the National Library of Australia and in 4 of the
6 state library sytems. It is sold on Amazon, by Book Depository, Borders and many other book stores. A bookstore in Hobart admitted that they have had it on their shelves lqst year.

The man got a two year good behaviour bond and was put on the sex registry. He is currectly appealing against the sentence and it would seem that most Tasmanians are supportative towards him and are appalled by his conviction.

 

[sonak]

We have one person on the sex register in Tasmania whose only crime was that the police found a digital copy of The Pearl on his computer. The computer was stolen and recovered by the police. The police decided for some reason to look though the man's entire porn collection and this was the only file that they could find that could be seen as being illegal.

It is an erotic book written in the 19th and the is some underaged teenage sexual behaviour depicted in it. However at the time it was written it was legal for 13 year old girls to have sex.

This book is available in the National Library of Australia and in 4 of the
6 state library sytems. It is sold on Amazon, by Book Depository, Borders and many other book stores. A bookstore in Hobart admitted that they have had it on their shelves lqst year.

The man got a two year good behaviour bond and was put on the sex registry. He is currectly appealing against the sentence and it would seem that most Tasmanians are supportative towards him and are appalled by his conviction.

what always gets me about stories like that (besides the shocking abuse of power, of course) is the waste of police and state resources. I mean think about it-they should be spending their time on real criminals, but instead are screwing around with this stuff.

 

[Data Holmes]

^to the police, all civilians are criminals, they just haven't been "caught" breaking the la yet.

 

[scotpens]

Well, really, if someone looks at a teenage girl who has gone through puberty and obviously has all of the qualities one finds attractive in women (breasts, ass, hips, shapely legs, clear skin, good bone structure in the face) then it only seems logical to find her attractive regardless of her age. Biologically she is a "grown-woman." Sure mentally and legally things are different but there's nothing inherently wrong with finding a teenage girl attractive.

Acting on that attraction is a whole other thing, however.

Now, pedophilia is an entirely different animal as it is an attraction to children, that-is people who have not gone through puberty!

That can’t be stressed enough in these times when the words “pedophilia” and “pedophile” are tossed around so carelessly. A middle-aged guy who ogles attractive teenage girls is NOT a pedophile. He’s just a dirty old man!

(“Think of the children” is quite obviously one of the most dangerous phrases in existence.)

Another one is “zero tolerance.”

And of course all this hysteria invites the problem of false accusations. Somebody who's never committed a sexcrime* in their life can be falsely labelled as one and then their life is over.

That brings to mind the McMartin Preschool case, involving allegations of multiple child sexual abuse, back in the 1980s. During the trial, many storefronts prominently displayed signs saying “WE BELIEVE THE CHILDREN.”

So did the judges of Salem in 1692.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Should 'digital' porn - more generally, any kind of simulated porn that does not involve any actual beings being filmed by it - not be legal? I mean, child porn itself is disgusting but if there is a simulated version available, surely that would decrease the demand for the 'real thing'? Child porn is illegal because real children are harmed in the making of it. Right?

 

[Trekker4747]

I think some studies have actually shown that pornography works as a deterrent for sex crimes because of that very reason, it creates an outlet.

Not that photographs of real children should be allowed in any fashion but maybe be we should be harsher on the people creating it than we are on the people who simply have it? And that possessing materials related to child porn (drawings, fiction) shouldn't be so heavily penalized.

I understand how sick it is for a person to have that kind of depravity but unless what they are doing bring actual, real, physical harm to a child I don't think any action should be really taken and as a society we need to even more understand the differences between a child and someone who has gone through puberty.

 

[scotpens]

Not that photographs of real children should be allowed in any fashion but maybe be we should be harsher on the people creating it than we are on the people who simply have it? And that possessing materials related to child porn (drawings, fiction) shouldn't be so heavily penalized.

Creating and possessing works of fiction, drawings, animated cartoons, or computer-generated images shouldn’t be penalized, no matter what they depict or describe. As long as no actual children — or adults, for that matter — were harmed in producing it, criminalizing the mere possession of such material is thoughtcrime.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Should 'digital' porn - more generally, any kind of simulated porn that does not involve any actual beings being filmed by it - not be legal? I mean, child porn itself is disgusting but if there is a simulated version available, surely that would decrease the demand for the 'real thing'? Child porn is illegal because real children are harmed in the making of it. Right?

One would hope so. Otherwise, reading or writing about murder would be the equivalent of committing murder.

 

[ares93]

I think some studies have actually shown that pornography works as a deterrent for sex crimes because of that very reason, it creates an outlet.

Not that photographs of real children should be allowed in any fashion but maybe be we should be harsher on the people creating it than we are on the people who simply have it? And that possessing materials related to child porn (drawings, fiction) shouldn't be so heavily penalized.

I understand how sick it is for a person to have that kind of depravity but unless what they are doing bring actual, real, physical harm to a child I don't think any action should be really taken and as a society we need to even more understand the differences between a child and someone who has gone through puberty.

I'd hate to play devils advocate, but this is where the word "crime prevention" would fit nicely.

You have a valid point that it would give an outlet so to speak, but it would also trigger more "active" actions in certain people. That's why possession is prohibited. And i fully support that. In my eyes pedophiles/child killers/child abusers are the lowest form of scum. However, while not everyone with this certain "inclination" would act on it, there are plenty who would. And by legalizing or lowering the penalty you'd be playing into their hand.

 

[sonak]

I think some studies have actually shown that pornography works as a deterrent for sex crimes because of that very reason, it creates an outlet.

Not that photographs of real children should be allowed in any fashion but maybe be we should be harsher on the people creating it than we are on the people who simply have it? And that possessing materials related to child porn (drawings, fiction) shouldn't be so heavily penalized.

I understand how sick it is for a person to have that kind of depravity but unless what they are doing bring actual, real, physical harm to a child I don't think any action should be really taken and as a society we need to even more understand the differences between a child and someone who has gone through puberty.

I'd hate to play devils advocate, but this is where the word "crime prevention" would fit nicely.

You have a valid point that it would give an outlet so to speak, but it would also trigger more "active" actions in certain people. That's why possession is prohibited. And i fully support that. In my eyes pedophiles/child killers/child abusers are the lowest form of scum. However, while not everyone with this certain "inclination" would act on it, there are plenty who would. And by legalizing or lowering the penalty you'd be playing into their hand.

But you're basically acknowledging that this is an emotional reaction by you're reference to "lowest form of scum." And by your argument violent video games should be banned "just in case" they trigger the impulses of those inclined to violence. There's all kinds of thought crime that is in play in this area, but nothing's likely to change on this any time soon.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think some studies have actually shown that pornography works as a deterrent for sex crimes because of that very reason, it creates an outlet.

Not that photographs of real children should be allowed in any fashion but maybe be we should be harsher on the people creating it than we are on the people who simply have it? And that possessing materials related to child porn (drawings, fiction) shouldn't be so heavily penalized.

I understand how sick it is for a person to have that kind of depravity but unless what they are doing bring actual, real, physical harm to a child I don't think any action should be really taken and as a society we need to even more understand the differences between a child and someone who has gone through puberty.

I'd hate to play devils advocate, but this is where the word "crime prevention" would fit nicely.

You have a valid point that it would give an outlet so to speak, but it would also trigger more "active" actions in certain people. That's why possession is prohibited. And i fully support that. In my eyes pedophiles/child killers/child abusers are the lowest form of scum. However, while not everyone with this certain "inclination" would act on it, there are plenty who would. And by legalizing or lowering the penalty you'd be playing into their hand.

Is there any evidence that banning "virtual child porn" reduces rates of actual molestation?

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Honestly, I don't think we should be "registering" sex offenders. It's tantamount to punishment after the sentence has been served. It's hard enough for people who've served serious jail time to get jobs and find decent living since applications for all of those usually all have the question if the applicant has ever served time in jail.

Another way of looking at the registry is that, without it as an option, some sex offenders might be given longer sentences. It's not that different than a so-called split sentence, where someone is sentenced to prison followed by probation. For example, he or she is incarcerated for two years, followed by three years probation.

But like you and others have mentioned, the rules shouldn't be so restrictive that the person can't find a job and a decent place to live.

 

[Starbreaker]

I'm sorry... but I've looked over my county's sex offender registration's page and I did not see one "urination in public." They were mostly child molesters. People have a right to know where these people are living at all times and they definitely shouldn't be around children... ever.

 

[TheGrandTrekMaster]

And some people confuse "attraction to a teenager" with "being a pedophile."

This would probably explain why I had a family send me death threats through my then-colleagues and friends. (I was 19, she was 15 and 9 months).

Is there any evidence that banning "virtual child porn" reduces rates of actual molestation?

Just reminded me of something. There was a Japanese animated episode of something or other, one of the characters was underage... censored of course in Japan, because that's the culture, but they didn't release it Uncensored in English, which is mystifying, because it's standard practice to remove all censorship for extra-Japan release.

 

[Trekker4747]

Honestly, I don't think we should be "registering" sex offenders. It's tantamount to punishment after the sentence has been served. It's hard enough for people who've served serious jail time to get jobs and find decent living since applications for all of those usually all have the question if the applicant has ever served time in jail.

Another way of looking at the registry is that, without it as an option, some sex offenders might be given longer sentences. It's not that different than a so-called split sentence, where someone is sentenced to prison followed by probation. For example, he or she is incarcerated for two years, followed by three years probation.

But like you and others have mentioned, the rules shouldn't be so restrictive that the person can't find a job and a decent place to live.

Are people put on these registry taken off of it after a period of time? Seems to me, in many cases, they're pretty much on it forever.

 

[Myasishchev]

I'm sorry... but I've looked over my county's sex offender registration's page and I did not see one "urination in public."

That's because you're likely looking for the wrong thing. Try "indecent exposure."

In any event, no one's ever said that the majority of sex offender registrees (if that's a word) didn't do something serious enough to justify fucking up their lives, the problem is that the overinclusiveness ruins the lives of the quasi-innocent, which is intolerable, and it's not even in the interests of sex offender registry proponents, since it undermines the effectiveness of the label when "indecent exposure" can mean pissing in a parking lot, "criminal sexual conduct with a minor" can mean making out with a fifteen year old when you're nineteen, and "dissemination of obscene materials" can mean lending your 17 year old brother your copy of Teenage Spermaholics.

 

[sonak]

I'm sorry... but I've looked over my county's sex offender registration's page and I did not see one "urination in public."

That's because you're likely looking for the wrong thing. Try "indecent exposure."

In any event, no one's ever said that the majority of sex offender registrees (if that's a word) didn't do something serious enough to justify fucking up their lives, the problem is that the overinclusiveness ruins the lives of the quasi-innocent, which is intolerable, and it's not even in the interests of sex offender registry proponents, since it undermines the effectiveness of the label when "indecent exposure" can mean pissing in a parking lot, "criminal sexual conduct with a minor" can mean making out with a fifteen year old when you're nineteen, and "dissemination of obscene materials" can mean lending your 17 year old brother your copy of Teenage Spermaholics.

yeah, and you can argue that the balance between safety and privacy tilts toward safety in the case of actual molestation of children so there's a "need to know" in those situations.

But you really CAN'T make that argument in the case of public urination or statutory rape offenders.

 

[Myasishchev]

Indeed. "My God, that man might piss on my lawn next."

But, anyway, to be fair, there's no way of knowing how many of the indecent exposures in my local registry are for-serious indecent exposures--you know, dudes jacking off in the bushes, etc--and how many are for gentlemen who simply didn't want to wet their pants...

...Okay, I have the greatest protest march idea ever. Everyone has a pair of trousers they don't like very much, right?

 

[ares93]

Is there any evidence that banning "virtual child porn" reduces rates of actual molestation?

I doubt anyone would want to make a practical study of this particular subject, mate. But theoretically, it should also apply here. Since the theory about an "outlet", as Trekker worded it, has been scientifically proven. It is a double edged sword however. As i stated before, its not certain that everyone reacts the same way. It could cause a trigger in some people.

...Okay, I have the greatest protest march idea ever. Everyone has a pair of trousers they don't like very much, right?

Don't you bloody dare continue that sentence, laddy!

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Honestly, I don't think we should be "registering" sex offenders. It's tantamount to punishment after the sentence has been served. It's hard enough for people who've served serious jail time to get jobs and find decent living since applications for all of those usually all have the question if the applicant has ever served time in jail.

Another way of looking at the registry is that, without it as an option, some sex offenders might be given longer sentences. It's not that different than a so-called split sentence, where someone is sentenced to prison followed by probation. For example, he or she is incarcerated for two years, followed by three years probation.

But like you and others have mentioned, the rules shouldn't be so restrictive that the person can't find a job and a decent place to live.

Are people put on these registry taken off of it after a period of time? Seems to me, in many cases, they're pretty much on it forever.

Depends on the state and the offense. In Maryland, for example, the more serious offenses are for life, the less serious ones for ten years.

BTW, public urination does not get one on the registry here. Nor does statutory rape, depending on the age difference between the offender and the victim.