I was on another site where someone has started a topic claiming another poster on the site was a sex offender and claimed to be part of organization called "Save the Children Inc" run by volunteers. I did some checking and he has posted the same topic on every forum the guy has visited. Now I consider sex offenders some of the lowest beings on the planet but this seems tantamount to stalking. I've seen him post several times on a forum I regularly visit and he's never said anything to suggest what this guy is accusing him of. Is this going too far?
Tracking sex offenders
- Thread starter brian577
- Start date
Sounds like a vigilante group that's co-opted the name of a legitimate organization. If he's following this guy around just to badmouth him, then that would be stalking.
Yes, it's going too far, and it sounds like stalking.
This sounds alot like something that happened to a friend of mine about a year ago. The guy making the claim better be able to back himself up because he's openeing himself to shitload of legal problems if he can't.
How do we know if he's a sex offender? Build a bridge out of him.
the whole sex offender thing is another excuse for media hysteria. The fact that these "sex offenders" basically have to wear the scarlet letter "S" despite having possibly done nothing more than statutory rape when they were eighteen and their partner sixteen or urinated in a parking lot is ridiculous. That and it's all based on a myth about sex offenders having high rates of recidivism anyway.
More ignorance masquerading as moral outrage.
Oh, as for the topic, yes that's pretty creepy, stalker-ish behavior.
More ignorance masquerading as moral outrage.
Oh, as for the topic, yes that's pretty creepy, stalker-ish behavior.
Another board I used to use, had been unwitting 'hosts' to three paedos...
The admins had found out about each one of them and sent the cops to their doors before they did any harm.
I found out as I'd been quite pally with one of them, and was asking "where did so and so disappear off to?" and a Mod messaged me to tell me... I'd been oblivious to this fella's predilections, nothing about him, or his posts marked him out as anything out of the ordinary.
The admins had found out about each one of them and sent the cops to their doors before they did any harm.
I found out as I'd been quite pally with one of them, and was asking "where did so and so disappear off to?" and a Mod messaged me to tell me... I'd been oblivious to this fella's predilections, nothing about him, or his posts marked him out as anything out of the ordinary.
You can also wind up a registered sex offender for urinating in public. You don't even have to have committed a sex crime. It's ridiculous.
Why would the cops go after them before they did any harm?
Because they dont really need evidence to make your life a living hell? Its sorta in their job description. Fuck with the public and then play the innocent bystander when IA knock on your door... Which incidentally is right now, as a DCI, two DI's and a PS learned... The PS (Now PC) being my nemesis, if he bloody knew how to spell it.
My mate was 18 when he got his 17 year old girlfriend pregnant. She is two months younger. Watertight case of statutory rape. Several of his friends helped him jump bail and leave the country (my involvement was never proven btw), and as far as i know they've gotten married and settled somewhere in central europe.
Last edited:
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.
So now we have a situation where someone has served time for being a "sex offender" which can range from urinating in public, to sleeping with someone a year or two younger than you (but who was underage and you lived in a state without a "Romeo and Juliet Law") but you still maintain a serious relationship with all the way up to child diddling/rape.
Registering as a sex-offender doesn't account for this wide range of circumstances and the net result is that vast majority of people who were in for more minor offense are hurt for it. This will more-than-likely lead to them either having to live in a high-crime area with lower standards or possibly turn to a life of crime themselves just to exist.
Now, I admit that if you live in a neighborhood you might want to know if the person down the block served time for raping a child. But I am not sure how to account for that without possibly violating a person's right to privacy and without continuing to punish them after they've paid their debt to society through jail-time.
But, at the very least, we need to account for the degrees of separation there is between "urinating in public" and "child rapist." Maybe only have the registry apply to the more serious offenses? But if we do that then I'd have to argue for some sort of registry for people who've served time for other violent crimes like "traditional" rape, murder, robbery, auto-theft and so on.
It's, frankly, a little un-fair to single out one "class" of criminals because we live in a society with the Maude Flanders-ian "think of the children!" mentality.
So now we have a situation where someone has served time for being a "sex offender" which can range from urinating in public, to sleeping with someone a year or two younger than you (but who was underage and you lived in a state without a "Romeo and Juliet Law") but you still maintain a serious relationship with all the way up to child diddling/rape.
Registering as a sex-offender doesn't account for this wide range of circumstances and the net result is that vast majority of people who were in for more minor offense are hurt for it. This will more-than-likely lead to them either having to live in a high-crime area with lower standards or possibly turn to a life of crime themselves just to exist.
Now, I admit that if you live in a neighborhood you might want to know if the person down the block served time for raping a child. But I am not sure how to account for that without possibly violating a person's right to privacy and without continuing to punish them after they've paid their debt to society through jail-time.
But, at the very least, we need to account for the degrees of separation there is between "urinating in public" and "child rapist." Maybe only have the registry apply to the more serious offenses? But if we do that then I'd have to argue for some sort of registry for people who've served time for other violent crimes like "traditional" rape, murder, robbery, auto-theft and so on.
It's, frankly, a little un-fair to single out one "class" of criminals because we live in a society with the Maude Flanders-ian "think of the children!" mentality.
it comes down to ignorance and politicizing justice. Ignorance because people assume "sex offender" is equivalent to pedophile, when it's not, and because of the myth of high recidivism for sex offenders.
And when you politicize justice, it's hard to press for reforms which make it look as if you're being "soft on crime," or ESPECIALLY "soft on sex offenders."
the justice system should be kept totally separate from politics.
And some people confuse "attraction to a teenager" with "being a pedophile."
^^^ Exactly! That's actually "ephebophilia", not "pedophilia". [/smartarse]
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! People who do not display the secondary characteristics of their gender. A female child doesn't have the hips, breasts or other features of her teenage counterpart and an attraction to that should be looked at with question. But even an attraction is completely different than an action.
And, pretty much, society wants to reduce true sex offenders to being charged with thought crimes. If a true pedophile is turned on my artist's depictions of underage children more power to him, he's harming no one. (So long as they're artwork and not actual photographs of illegal acts but even then you could argue he's is personally doing no harm. Creating a "market" for such a thing is hardly as bad as actually creating the photograph.)
Acting out on the thoughts by truly harming a child in a physical way should certainly be acted on, but I'm not entirely convinced that just being "into" the imagery and thought should be enough to arrest someone and no matter what their crime once they are out of jail they should not be further punished by being on a registry that will make their post-jail life more difficult.
Serving jail time is paying your debt to society, putting them on a registry pretty much continues the punishment as it treats the offender as someone who is still a criminal not worthy of equal treatment in society.
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! People who do not display the secondary characteristics of their gender. A female child doesn't have the hips, breasts or other features of her teenage counterpart and an attraction to that should be looked at with question. But even an attraction is completely different than an action.
And, pretty much, society wants to reduce true sex offenders to being charged with thought crimes. If a true pedophile is turned on my artist's depictions of underage children more power to him, he's harming no one. (So long as they're artwork and not actual photographs of illegal acts but even then you could argue he's is personally doing no harm. Creating a "market" for such a thing is hardly as bad as actually creating the photograph.)
Acting out on the thoughts by truly harming a child in a physical way should certainly be acted on, but I'm not entirely convinced that just being "into" the imagery and thought should be enough to arrest someone and no matter what their crime once they are out of jail they should not be further punished by being on a registry that will make their post-jail life more difficult.
Serving jail time is paying your debt to society, putting them on a registry pretty much continues the punishment as it treats the offender as someone who is still a criminal not worthy of equal treatment in society.
Since certain classes of those offenders have a shockingly high recidivism rate, I've no problems with requiring them to remain on a registry so that their neighbors can know not to trust them for things like child care or allowing children to visit without the supervision of another adult.
I think some communities have gone too far with restrictions on where they can live though. I've read reports of offenders being esentially exilled from much of a community because the minimum radius around all the schools, parks, day cares, libraries and recreation centers overlap.
I also think the registries are extended to too many offenses in some places. They shouldn't apply to situations where both partners consented and their ages are only a few years apart. They also shouldn't apply when someone got so desperate to urinate they couldn't wait to reach an available restroom (in some neighborhoods they aren't easy to find). The registry requirement should only apply if the offender was clearly intending to expose himself to people. There should also be allowances if a peeping "victim" is negligent about using blinds/curtains/shades and the other offender doesn't walk from a sidewalk or street into a yard for a better look.
I think some communities have gone too far with restrictions on where they can live though. I've read reports of offenders being esentially exilled from much of a community because the minimum radius around all the schools, parks, day cares, libraries and recreation centers overlap.
I also think the registries are extended to too many offenses in some places. They shouldn't apply to situations where both partners consented and their ages are only a few years apart. They also shouldn't apply when someone got so desperate to urinate they couldn't wait to reach an available restroom (in some neighborhoods they aren't easy to find). The registry requirement should only apply if the offender was clearly intending to expose himself to people. There should also be allowances if a peeping "victim" is negligent about using blinds/curtains/shades and the other offender doesn't walk from a sidewalk or street into a yard for a better look.
Sex crimes are horrible, true, but our treatment of offenders has long since jumped the shark, as it were. All anyone cares about is punishing them so as to look tough. ("Think of the children" is quite obviously one of the most dangerous phrases in existence.) Actually *treating* them, getting them the help they need, is an afterthought at best. 
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.
* I purposely wrote this as one word...
Oh, and speaking of hysteria, Nancy Grace should be made to suffer some kind of penalty, such as death.
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.
* I purposely wrote this as one word...
Oh, and speaking of hysteria, Nancy Grace should be made to suffer some kind of penalty, such as death.
do you have a source for that claim about a "shockingly high recidivism?" As a wrote, I've seen studies that show that the "high recidivism" thing is a big myth that's used to doubly punish sex offenders when they've already finished their sentences.
Although you do qualify it as "some categories," so maybe you've seen other data. However, even if it were the case that these offenders were continually repeating their crimes, it would seem to me an indication that it's a sickness to be treated.
Which will of course not happen anytime remotely qualifying as "soon." Just try to suggest treatment for sex offenders if one is in politics.
The men in question were using the board to find either underage kids, or single mothers. The Mods were able to see messages that the men were sending, and sussed out what was going on, so the cops were called and sent to the mens' houses to warn them off.
Or something - I wasn't in on the whole thing, I was only told bits of it because I started asking where so and so had gotten to, and other people were asking after him as well.
