Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, if "go free" didn't mean "free to diddle more victims" and "hang" didn't mean "accused but exonerated".

Seriously, if a 9-year-old runs out of the bathroom with that story the guy must have done something to justify it.

That picture is frightening.

Karon wrote:gak, you guys can sit on your high-horse, no judgmental facade all you want, but I know that I would never be able to treat that thing like a normal human being. When my eyes hurt when I look at it, there is a problem.

Stay classy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I'm surprised that they gave out his home address before at least a plea/conviction was made. I notice it didn't mention anything about his mental state. Does the guy have more than facial problems?

That's what I was wondering. In part because of his appearance, and in part because the ranks of zoo maintenance staff don't tend to be filled with the best and brightest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:It's pretty clear that normal procedural and Constitutional rights don't apply to sex offenders.

Nor to people merely accused of the crime, it appears.

Whether this is a good thing or not...I could go both ways. But I think the harm to the wrongly accused far outweighs the harm of a correctly-accused having easy access to kids while he's under investigation.

Assuming the only possible way to keep people safe from people like this was to give out his address. If a person represents an imminent danger to society then the court can keep him in custody. In fact, giving out his address does nothing to protect society - if he intended to abuse more kids he'd probably leave his house to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Seriously, if a 9-year-old runs out of the bathroom with that story the guy must have done something to justify it.

Probably. But I don't see how "probably" makes giving out a home address in a case almost certain to get a strong emotional reaction from the public, and just increases the likelihood of an ugly scene at the man's home.

Notice they've set bail so high that the effect is to stop him leaving prison, which seems to me a much more practical solution.

I always find people's reactions to sex-offenders interesting - it seems that there's this bubbling cauldron of hate and prejudice under the surface, and that people feel that they can just let it go because child-molesters are the lowest of the low. Like, a righteous target for violence and hatred, or something?

Could it just be that you feel that prejudice and that desire to cause harm, and that child molesters are a useful excuse to express it, consequence free?

sebster wrote:

Whether this is a good thing or not...I could go both ways. But I think the harm to the wrongly accused far outweighs the harm of a correctly-accused having easy access to kids while he's under investigation.

Assuming the only possible way to keep people safe from people like this was to give out his address. If a person represents an imminent danger to society then the court can keep him in custody. In fact, giving out his address does nothing to protect society - if he intended to abuse more kids he'd probably leave his house to do so.

So, assuming you have kids, you wouldn't want to know where the sex offenders (or accused sex offenders) are located relative to your home? I sure would.

sebster wrote:Notice they've set bail so high that the effect is to stop him leaving prison, which seems to me a much more practical solution.

If the court really thought he was in danger of committing a crime, bail would have been refused.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:I'm really hoping you got that backwards, Dude.

If a man (and lets be honest, 9 times out of 10, it's going to be a man) is wrongly accused, it's hard to get off the sex offender registry. And even harder to erase that from the public mind.

If a man is correctly accused, but his information is kept secret, there's a risk that another child could be hurt.

I think it's a tough call, but I would err on the side of nondisclosure. The "better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent man hang" is a tough standard to apply when you're talking about offenders committing another crime. Especially in the case of violent crime.

Albatross wrote:I always find people's reactions to sex-offenders interesting - it seems that there's this bubbling cauldron of hate and prejudice under the surface, and that people feel that they can just let it go because child-molesters are the lowest of the low. Like, a righteous target for violence and hatred, or something?

Could it just be that you feel that prejudice and that desire to cause harm, and that child molesters are a useful excuse to express it, consequence free?

Wow... I'm disappointed in you Alb. It must be the new avatar.

It's probably more along the lines of: Everyone has been innocent at one point and knows a child who is still innocent in some way and regrets the idea if that innocence being lost to a degree. Once it's gone, there's no going back. Like the death of the last of a species, it's tragic (to an extent). The idea of it being taken from them (or themselves) at an early age (by some horrible feth with mental issues) is more than most people can bear. This is easily translated to hatred and thoughts of violence.

I have plenty of people in my life who have been molested at some point and it's a lifelong horrible trauma. It NEVER goes away. Logically people react strongly to this and want the perpetrator to have things done to them that don't go away either.

I am bigoted and have prejudices, I will freely admit that. They have absolutely nothing to do with my desire to do violence to pedophiles.

I don't discriminate, I'd put a double-barreled shotgun down ALL their pants.

...

i cant tell which is worse. to be molested by someone who looks like every bit of a monster that he is...or be molested by someone with a face you can love and trust...

the horror of the monster within and the monster without.

both hit a different avenue of sick and wrong imho.

OT(somewhat):
while appearance may not be an issue...you have to admit it does put a different spin on things. kinda like gender.

I've seen worse stalking the isles of Wal-Mart.

Who the hell is brian peppers and why should I care?

Think he invented a fizzy drink made from capsicums and snake oil.

Cures coughs and colds and scabby bottoms.

Soladrin wrote:Who the hell is brian peppers and why should I care?

There ya go.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Albatross wrote:I always find people's reactions to sex-offenders interesting - it seems that there's this bubbling cauldron of hate and prejudice under the surface, and that people feel that they can just let it go because child-molesters are the lowest of the low. Like, a righteous target for violence and hatred, or something?

Could it just be that you feel that prejudice and that desire to cause harm, and that child molesters are a useful excuse to express it, consequence free?

Wow... I'm disappointed in you Alb. It must be the new avatar.

It's probably more along the lines of: Everyone has been innocent at one point and knows a child who is still innocent in some way and regrets the idea if that innocence being lost to a degree. Once it's gone, there's no going back. Like the death of the last of a species, it's tragic (to an extent). The idea of it being taken from them (or themselves) at an early age (by some horrible feth with mental issues) is more than most people can bear. This is easily translated to hatred and thoughts of violence.

I have plenty of people in my life who have been molested at some point and it's a lifelong horrible trauma. It NEVER goes away. Logically people react strongly to this and want the perpetrator to have things done to them that don't go away either.

I am bigoted and have prejudices, I will freely admit that. They have absolutely nothing to do with my desire to do violence to pedophiles.

I don't discriminate, I'd put a double-barreled shotgun down ALL their pants.

You are free to be as disappointed as you like - I'm merely asking the question, and as far as I can see, I think there maybe something to it judging by some people's reactions to his physical appearance. It's like people want to be free to call this guy a 'monster' based on his physical appearance, and are delighted that he's a child-molester because that gives them carte blanche to say what they like. What he did made him monstrous, not what he looks like. If he wasn't a child molester, I'd be inclined to feel a bit sorry for the guy.

That said, persistent child sex-offenders should hang. That's my opinion. And not because I think they are 'evil', because I don't believe in evil people, only evil acts. No, they should hang because they can't be rehabilitated, any more than I could be rehabilitated from being straight(ish). Think about it - who would choose to be a paedophile? Because they can't 'unlearn' their sexual preference, and their sexual preference is harmful to society, particularly its most vulnerable members, I think they should be put down. No torture, no unnecessary cruelty - just a noose round the neck. Cheap, simple, effective.

Looks to me like he has Treacher-Collins Syndrome (lack of cheekbones and outer ears, underdeveloped jaw). Without trying to look like I'm siding with him, I don't think you should mock his physical appearance as a disabled child-molester is still disabled.

biccat wrote:So, assuming you have kids, you wouldn't want to know where the sex offenders (or accused sex offenders) are located relative to your home? I sure would.

First up, I'm not going to go leaving my kids in the homes of people I don't know. If it was a person I knew, I would be informed by the circle of people I knew him through about what had happened, I wouldn't be relying on stumbling across the story in the paper. And even if I were, I'd already know where he lived.

In terms of this guy being a danger to the general public, if he is out on bail and looking to offend again, then he can do it away from his house.

It's a nonsense concern.

If the court really thought he was in danger of committing a crime, bail would have been refused.

Then where there's a significant chance of him committing another crime, it is right and sensible for the courts to refuse bail. Which just means that giving out his address makes even less sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:No, they should hang because they can't be rehabilitated, any more than I could be rehabilitated from being straight(ish).

Actually, the rate of repeat offense is actually quite low. A lot depends on the circumstances, where the person takes responsbility and recognises what they did was wrong, and family (and particular a wife) stands by them and takes an active part in stopping future offenses, the rate of repeat offense is extremely low.

Where the paedophile fails to take personal responsibility, fails to see what they did was wrong, and is abandoned by friends and family, the rate of re-offense gets much higher.

I'd like to see some figures for that sebster, if you can scare them up?

Also, I'd like to point out that I was talking about 'persistent child sex offenders'.

Albatross wrote:I'd like to see some figures for that sebster, if you can scare them up?

"Even among child molesters, about 18 percent had been arrested for similar offenses before, and only 3.3 percent of those released in 1994 were arrested again for a crime against a child."
http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_18/myths_facts_recidivism.htm

Also, I'd like to point out that I was talking about 'persistent child sex offenders'.

Sorry, missed that. You're absolutely right about persistant sex offenders.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:So, assuming you have kids, you wouldn't want to know where the sex offenders (or accused sex offenders) are located relative to your home? I sure would.

First up, I'm not going to go leaving my kids in the homes of people I don't know. If it was a person I knew, I would be informed by the circle of people I knew him through about what had happened, I wouldn't be relying on stumbling across the story in the paper. And even if I were, I'd already know where he lived.

You don't have to leave your kid in someone's home for them to be abducted or sexually assaulted.

For example, would you want your kids walking past this guy's house on their way to and from school? If his home was outside a bus stop, would you want your kids to be there every morning? If he's your neighbor, would you be more vigilant when the kids are outside playing? If he was the father of your kids' friends, would you know? What if he's a non-custodial parent but has visitation on the weekends when your kids are playing at the friend's house?

There are a lot of valid reasons to publish the information of an accused offender.

sebster wrote:In terms of this guy being a danger to the general public, if he is out on bail and looking to offend again, then he can do it away from his house.

It's a nonsense concern.

Reducing the chance of a new crime occurring is "nonsense"? So what's the rationale for having police officers, people are just going to commit a crime away from the cops, right?

biccat wrote:You don't have to leave your kid in someone's home for them to be abducted or sexually assaulted.

Really, well let's look through your list of examples then to see if any are at all plausible...

For example, would you want your kids walking past this guy's house on their way to and from school? If his home was outside a bus stop, would you want your kids to be there every morning?

Do you actually think that sexual predators are lurking in their own homes, waiting for some kid to walk by on their school walk, ready to drag them into the house? Do you realise how ridiculous that is? If a sexual predator is intent on abducting a kid (a crime representing a fraction of all sexual abuse of children, by the way) then he's not going to do it right outside his home, he's going to get in his car.

If he's your neighbor, would you be more vigilant when the kids are outside playing? If he was the father of your kids' friends, would you know?

If he was your neighbour, you would know he was a sexual predator by his name, and by his picture published in the paper. The address would not be needed.

Also, these are the kind of things that get mentioned in social groups.

"Oh my God! My child Timmy was molested by John's Dad."
"Ohhh.... yeah... right. Ummm, John's Dad was charged with molestation of a kid in a public bathroom last month, can't believe I forgot to tell you. Jeeze, if I'd mentioned that I never would have let your kid stay over at his house. Wow... ummm... chalk that one up to my bad."

What if he's a non-custodial parent but has visitation on the weekends when your kids are playing at the friend's house?

Then it would be mentioned within that social group. There's also the fact that he's very unlikely to keep access to his kids after molesting someone else's kid.

Your examples are all very silly. Meanwhile I seen you've ignored my point that if the court felt he was likely to re-offend they can deny bail. No answer for that, huh?

Reducing the chance of a new crime occurring is "nonsense"? So what's the rationale for having police officers, people are just going to commit a crime away from the cops, right?

No, that's a ridiculous interpretation of what I said. Of course reducing the chance of a new crime is nonsense.

Your analogy makes no sense, because police are mobile and have a wide range of techniques to reduce crime. Whereas an address in the paper is just that, an address. It achieves nothing.

Poor kid, if that face is real his whole childhood just went into the warp.