gripe of the day

"'Kate" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:10:37 -0400, "P.Fritz"


"Cele" wrote in message
.. .
On 6 Jul 2004 10:38:05 -0700, (Karen O'Mara) wrote:
snip

The list of sex offenders
or criminals in general saturates every neighborhood. And, when you
let go and trust someone, no list is going to help.

If you check the list and the person's on it and you trust them
anyway, then you're right, you're beyond help.

I was in agreement up to here.......unfortunately (at least in Mich)
the
sex offeneders list has become so 'all inclusive" that it has become
meaningless...(I don't know if it is part of guvmint's attempt at
creating
hysteria or just plain incompetecy.) Included on the list (for 25
years)
are kids that were caught having consensual sex with their girlfriends
who
were under 16, people caught urinating in public (charge with indecent
exposure) etc. etc. While the "list" idea is good, it has become
rather
menaingless (at least here) in terms of deciding if someone is truely
dangerous to the community.

That is, to a point, true. But it's also true that someone who is on
that list is very quick with a story that makes it all seem like less
than it was. I made that mistake... of giving the benefit of the doubt
to someone who was the brother of a friend of mine. She swore the
charges against him were manufactured by the exwife to gain custody.
When her daughter (the neice of the offender) was molested too, it was a
bitter pill for her to swallow.

Exactly why the 'list' should not include minors (or near minors) involved
with consensual sex, as well as those charged with such crimes that had no
malicious intent, such as urinating in public, having consensual sex in
public etc. Those that would be on the list would really belong there.



'Kate

"'Kate" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:23:40 -0400, "P.Fritz"


"Joelle" wrote in message
...
I was in agreement up to here.......unfortunately (at least in Mich)
the
sex offeneders list has become so 'all inclusive"

Well that might be a problem when it comes to trying to get a job,
but we
were
originally talkinga bout dating. If you are on that list, I'm not
going
out
with you...even if it meant you got in trouble when you were 16.
Sorry.
Limiting the dating list is a small price to pay for protecting your
children.

I think that it is incredibly silly to assume that someone, who at the
age
of 16, had sex with a girl that was 15, and resulting in being on a sex
offender list for the next 25 years is protecting your kids. THAT is
the
problem whne guvmint gets out of control.......the REAL offenders get
to hid
in the forest of those that are not. THe hysteria created by these
mythical
numbers does more harm than good.

I don't know how your laws work but if there is less than a 2 year
difference in age and it's consentual (the age of consent varying by
state), then the older child will not be prosecuted. It is not a crime.
At least, not in Texas.

In Mich. 16 is the drop dead date.....one day it is statutory rape and the
next it is not, so one day you could be on the list for 25 years, the next
no crime at all....it doesn't make sense.....but that is guvmint. I think a
'two year" type rule make much more sense.


'Kate

"V" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

snip

I was in agreement up to here.......unfortunately (at least in Mich)
the
sex offeneders list has become so 'all inclusive" that it has become
meaningless...(I don't know if it is part of guvmint's attempt at
creating
hysteria or just plain incompetecy.) Included on the list (for 25
years)
are kids that were caught having consensual sex with their girlfriends
who
were under 16, people caught urinating in public (charge with indecent
exposure) etc. etc. While the "list" idea is good, it has become
rather
menaingless (at least here) in terms of deciding if someone is truely
dangerous to the community.

Paul, I worked for an agency for almost four years and saw many sex
offenders
registers. MOST of them were brutal rapes....not the statuatory....Also
they
list what type of sexual crime took place. I think most agencies would
agree.....these are few that are "marked" as a sex offender....others
should
be doing time and not walking around.

Onc again.....there have been plenty of news stories regarding "the list"
in Mich. and it includes all "sex crimes" including the so called statutory
rape and things such as urinating in public which is charged as indecent
exposure.............I have no problem with 'the list' for predatory sexual
offender, as well as those ith malicious intent...flashers etc.....I do have
a problem with the other situations being lumped in because it waters down
what 'the list' should be about.....but that is typical of guvmint that
wants to creat hysteria and generate statistics to grow itself.


V

snip

"V" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Joelle" wrote in message
...
I was in agreement up to here.......unfortunately (at least in
Mich)
the
sex offeneders list has become so 'all inclusive"

Well that might be a problem when it comes to trying to get a job,
but we
were
originally talkinga bout dating. If you are on that list, I'm not
going
out
with you...even if it meant you got in trouble when you were 16.
Sorry.
Limiting the dating list is a small price to pay for protecting your
children.

I think that it is incredibly silly to assume that someone, who at the
age
of 16, had sex with a girl that was 15, and resulting in being on a
sex
offender list for the next 25 years is protecting your kids. THAT is
the
problem whne guvmint gets out of control.......the REAL offenders get
to hid
in the forest of those that are not. THe hysteria created by these
mythical
numbers does more harm than good.


snip
That is not the law. For example, in Alabama there are different
elements to
fit the crime:

Free hint to the clueless......Alabama is NOT the law everywhere.....and
as I have stated several times, I am talking about how Mich. handles it
sheesh



(a) A person commits the crime of rape in the first degree if:

(1) He or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the
opposite sex
by forcible compulsion; or

(2) He or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the
opposite sex
who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or
mentally
incapacitated; or

(3) He or she, being 16 years or older, engages in sexual intercourse
with a
member of the opposite sex who is less than 12 years old.

now the lesser offense...
) A person commits the crime of rape in the second degree if:

(1) Being 16 years old or older, he or she engages in sexual intercourse
with
a member of the opposite sex less than 16 and more than 12 years old;
provided, however, the actor is at least two years older than the member
of
the opposite sex.

(2) He or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the
opposite sex
who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally defective.

The two year older thing would wipe out the 15/16 year old scenario.

Now here is the law on sexual abuse:
a) A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree if:

(1) He subjects another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion;
or

(2) He subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of
consent
by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated; or

(3) He, being 16 years old or older, subjects another person to sexual
contact
who is less than 12 years old.

and the lesser...
(a) A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree if:

(1) He subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of
consent
by reason of some factor other than being less than 16 years old; or

(2) He, being 19 years old or older, subjects another person to sexual
contact
who is less than 16 years old, but more than 12 years old.

Like I said, 19 year old does not need to be having sex with a 15 year
old...even if she "appears" to be 18.
My opinion.
V

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:10:37 -0400, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Cele" wrote in message
.. .
On 6 Jul 2004 10:38:05 -0700, (Karen O'Mara) wrote:
snip

The list of sex offenders
or criminals in general saturates every neighborhood. And, when you
let go and trust someone, no list is going to help.

If you check the list and the person's on it and you trust them
anyway, then you're right, you're beyond help.

I was in agreement up to here.......unfortunately (at least in Mich) the
sex offeneders list has become so 'all inclusive" that it has become
meaningless...(I don't know if it is part of guvmint's attempt at creating
hysteria or just plain incompetecy.) Included on the list (for 25 years)
are kids that were caught having consensual sex with their girlfriends who
were under 16, people caught urinating in public (charge with indecent
exposure) etc. etc. While the "list" idea is good, it has become rather
menaingless (at least here) in terms of deciding if someone is truely
dangerous to the community.

That's unfortunate. So if someone's on the list and *you* don't see
why, at least you're alerted to explore this. It absolutely sucks that
some people are on the list for trivial reasons. I can't imagine how
urinating in public when you're 21 on the way home from a lively night
at the pub makes you a sex offender. But I've gotta tell you, unfair
as it is, if a guy was on the sex offender list, I'd be asking
questions before they got anywhere near my kids.

It's a data point. That's what it is. All data points require the
application of intelligence, but given that's the case, data is better
than no data. Especially where kids' safety is concerned.

Cele

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 02:42:36 GMT, "V" wrote:


"Cele" wrote in message
.. .
snip Yes, my kid was abducted and so on, and yes we're still going through
it, and while it may be an extreme example, it's a real life one.

My point is that when we get to the point of trusting someone, we've
probably done a lot of personal investigating in different ways. snip

Cele: I admire the way you and your daughter have been handling this. I know
it is difficult.
V

Thanks. It is. But you do what needs to be done. Just lately it's got
a bit harder, but I'm hoping it's a storm before a calm?

I think being in hospital is making it impossible to bury her
problems, but it's hurting a LOT to cope with them as they resurface
in all kinds of scary ways. She's trying, though. And the hospital
staff are good.

We're all hanging in there. Thanks for the support.

Cele

On 06 Jul 2004 18:56:17 GMT, oaway (Joelle) wrote:


Everyday we trust a doctor to make decisions on our health

And I make sure he's qualified to make those decisions...

we trust
the neighbors where our kids are playing,

And I make sure I know as much about my neighbors as possible

we trust our heart when
forming relationship

Know, I use my mind and my common sense, too many people make dangerous and
foolish decisions on emotion only.


, we trust the coaches, the teachers, the
caregivers, the priests

All of whom in many states are required to have background checks, I suppose
you think that's paranoid...

very once in a while, someone slips
through and causes harm.

That's right, you can't prevent all harm, but that doesn't mean you take what
precautions are available to you.

It's a part of life (as in living).

And taking precautions is all part of being responsible, unfortunately too many
people don't think responsiblity is an important part of life anymore.
Fortunately, I don't base my decisions on what most people think.


I think it's paranoid, too.

Well if it makes you feel better to label people who make different decisions
than you....

Joelle

I'm in complete agreement with you on this, Joelle. Well said. I can't
possibly add anything to that ATM.

Thanks.

Cele

"Cele" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:10:37 -0400, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Cele" wrote in message
.. .
On 6 Jul 2004 10:38:05 -0700, (Karen O'Mara) wrote:
snip

The list of sex offenders
or criminals in general saturates every neighborhood. And, when you
let go and trust someone, no list is going to help.

If you check the list and the person's on it and you trust them
anyway, then you're right, you're beyond help.

I was in agreement up to here.......unfortunately (at least in Mich)
the
sex offeneders list has become so 'all inclusive" that it has become
meaningless...(I don't know if it is part of guvmint's attempt at
creating
hysteria or just plain incompetecy.) Included on the list (for 25
years)
are kids that were caught having consensual sex with their girlfriends
who
were under 16, people caught urinating in public (charge with indecent
exposure) etc. etc. While the "list" idea is good, it has become
rather
menaingless (at least here) in terms of deciding if someone is truely
dangerous to the community.

That's unfortunate. So if someone's on the list and *you* don't see
why, at least you're alerted to explore this. It absolutely sucks that
some people are on the list for trivial reasons. I can't imagine how
urinating in public when you're 21 on the way home from a lively night
at the pub makes you a sex offender. But I've gotta tell you, unfair
as it is, if a guy was on the sex offender list, I'd be asking
questions before they got anywhere near my kids.

It's a data point. That's what it is. All data points require the
application of intelligence, but given that's the case, data is better
than no data. Especially where kids' safety is concerned.

Guvmint can just make us all criminals and then we can all be paranoid and
depend on guvmint to protect us. It is another example of a 'good idea'
gone bad



Cele

Cele wrote in message . ..
And because of that, you would choose not to access available
information to protect your child against repeat offenders?

Was the predator that you encountered on any list?

It's really hard to present any other side after what you had to say.
I'm really sorry. I guess I can only say that it's hard for me to run
checks on people, like you suggest we should. I am sure I'd feel
differently somehow if I were in different shoes.

Karen

oaway (Joelle) wrote in message ...

Well that might be a problem when it comes to trying to get a job, but we were
originally talkinga bout dating. If you are on that list, I'm not going out
with you...even if it meant you got in trouble when you were 16. Sorry.
Limiting the dating list is a small price to pay for protecting your children.

I can't imagine you, or I, going out with someone on the list, whether
we consult it, or not.

I think the list is meaningless because I've seen the types of people
on the lists in this area... I'd never have anything to do with them,
in the first place.

Karen