|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:19 pm
Do you think that the Child Molestor label should be on someone's permenant record (and on local warning lists) for life? Do you think they can ever reform or become non-threats?
I'm so torn on this, because we have a family friend who was honestly wrongly accused. Now his wife started a business, and so he wasn't a risk to her, he had to start his own side business aside from hers. His bitter ex-wife coached her 5 year old to say in court, "I witnessed my step-father lovingly caress my brother's p***s." The fact that he was convicted on that testimony is bullshit, but regardless, now he is a listed sex offender, and if you do state searches, his name, information, picture and crime are available to anyone.
So, do you think this is a title people should ALWAYS be affected by, or it's something that could be revoked after X number of years, or after psychiatric evaluation?
Right now, it's a lifelong thing.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:49 pm
Like you, I am torn. On the one hand, the community should have the right to know if there is a threat to their children among them. On the other hand, what if it was a mistrial?
I think that I do support a life-long label, BUT better steps need to be taken to prevent mistrials. There's a lot of work currently being conducted right now in using children's testimonies. Many strategies have been developed to get valid data from underaged witnesses. This research has mostly focused on preventing "suggestion" from the questioners that might affect children's testimonies and I am not sure how it would detect whether or not a child has already been "suggested." But that would be the perfect world solution I would like to see.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:34 am
Agreed. Child testemony is tough. For molestation cases, though, it's neccesary... but like I pointed out with the case above, even the most OBVIOUS coached phrases, a judge will sometimes accept, probably because there's such a (deserved!) prejuduce against child molestors that people get it in their head that they're GUILTY! and don't listen to reason... impartial judge my a**.
I mean, seriously, could you EVER see a 5 year old girl say, "I saw my step-FATHER LOVINGLY CARESS my brother's p***s," without any form of coaching? Yeah freakin' right.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:50 pm
That's what I mean, better ways of getting testamony. One could be looking at the child's vocabulary and making sure that the statement's vocabulary is consistent with the rest of the child's speech patterns.
And yes, I do think that people can be too quick to judge in these cases because there's so much emotionality involved. Of course, I am mostly talking out of my a**. I've never stepped foot in a court room, much less for a child molestation case.
Perhaps, if we made sentencing dependent on the case. For example, if it's one child's testamony and it's put in doubt (such as this case where the mother would have a motive for getting her child to say it), he could just be removed from the child but not have all the other stuff added on? Maybe?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:51 pm
I'm a bit torn on this subject too. It's a very difficult one when you think of all the circumstances that can occur leading up to someones being labeled as a "child molestor". Since everyone does have a right to know about a potential threat so that they can better prepare themselves, but also, it is unfair to those who never posed a threat. I think, perhaps, instead of "for life" there should be an in depth psychological analyses to get the label "removed"...or something of the like. That way those who have been falsey accused or tried can go on to live normal lives without the neighbors giving them dirty looks and avoiding them when they've done nothing wrong.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:49 pm
What I really want to say is if yes, the person is actually guilty, then it should be on their record for life. But if the person accused is innocent and there were some way to prove it, then I think it should be wiped off their record. Of course, proving it would be difficult I assume.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:45 am
Nikolita What I really want to say is if yes, the person is actually guilty, then it should be on their record for life. But if the person accused is innocent and there were some way to prove it, then I think it should be wiped off their record. Of course, proving it would be difficult I assume. I agree. An innocent person shouldn't have that label. It not only ruins their life, but their family's and close friends. You don't label someone a 'murderer' if they didn't do it, so why the same with 'child molester'?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:45 am
Right. I think there needs to be a very extensive psycological evaluation to determine whether or not they pose a threat, whether they were convicted wrongly, or convicted rightly but reformed.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:58 am
I think that the label should only stay ur entire life if it was intercourse with a child. If some1 sexually touched a child then they should be punished, but they shouldnt have to hold it for the rest of their lives.. because sometimes kids lie (especially girls) to get some1 in trouble, saying that her dad touched her where he shouldnt have, even tho he didnt. So unless its intercourse, i dont think the label should be there for the entire life
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:36 am
First off let me say I am sorry to hear about your friend but lets face facts how many people are faslely convected of this crime? And even so what about the ones who really did it? I see what you saying about the hole x number of years and then bye bye child molester wrap but what about those few sick people who dont stop the one who wait so many years before choosing a new victim. If we did it like that they you could be living next door to someone how raped so many kids but because it has been x amount of years youll never know, I mean it not like he is going to go around wearing a sign saying "I RAPE LITTLE KIDS" now is he? I know what your going to say: there are many UNREGISTURED sex offenders living in neighborhoods all across the US. But you still have to think about it from the point of view yeah what happened to your friend really sucks a** but because of the law being the way it is there are a lot of parents out there who can be aware of any sick people living around them. The why I look at it is you have to take the good with the bad in life and when it comes to your kids you have to do all you can for them.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:55 am
RinoaRose First off let me say I am sorry to hear about your friend but lets face facts how many people are faslely convected of this crime? And even so what about the ones who really did it? I see what you saying about the hole x number of years and then bye bye child molester wrap but what about those few sick people who dont stop the one who wait so many years before choosing a new victim. If we did it like that they you could be living next door to someone how raped so many kids but because it has been x amount of years youll never know, I mean it not like he is going to go around wearing a sign saying "I RAPE LITTLE KIDS" now is he? I know what your going to say: there are many UNREGISTURED sex offenders living in neighborhoods all across the US. But you still have to think about it from the point of view yeah what happened to your friend really sucks a** but because of the law being the way it is there are a lot of parents out there who can be aware of any sick people living around them. The why I look at it is you have to take the good with the bad in life and when it comes to your kids you have to do all you can for them. The percentage of people who are wrongly convicted is very small, but it still happens. Hence: MipsyKitten Nikolita What I really want to say is if yes, the person is actually guilty, then it should be on their record for life. But if the person accused is innocent and there were some way to prove it, then I think it should be wiped off their record. Of course, proving it would be difficult I assume. I agree. An innocent person shouldn't have that label. It not only ruins their life, but their family's and close friends. You don't label someone a 'murderer' if they didn't do it, so why the same with 'child molester'? We're saying that if the person really did commit the crime, well of COURSE it should stay on their record for life. They're abusing children! But if someone is innocent, it should not stay on their record, for the reasons already stated and listed above.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:49 pm
Savina Right. I think there needs to be a very extensive psycological evaluation to determine whether or not they pose a threat, whether they were convicted wrongly, or convicted rightly but reformed. I have read a lot of cases about child molestation, and have found that the people who do it can't simply 'reform'. It is a disease (for a lack of a better word) which compells them to act. They can say they won't do it again, but the fact that they did shows they are a threat. It doesn't matter if the threat is 1%, or 100%. There's still a risk. Now, if they say they've reformed, I don't believe people should throw bricks through their windows or beat them up, but they shouldn't have their record erased, or have any job that involves children.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:55 pm
Nikolita RinoaRose First off let me say I am sorry to hear about your friend but lets face facts how many people are faslely convected of this crime? And even so what about the ones who really did it? I see what you saying about the hole x number of years and then bye bye child molester wrap but what about those few sick people who dont stop the one who wait so many years before choosing a new victim. If we did it like that they you could be living next door to someone how raped so many kids but because it has been x amount of years youll never know, I mean it not like he is going to go around wearing a sign saying "I RAPE LITTLE KIDS" now is he? I know what your going to say: there are many UNREGISTURED sex offenders living in neighborhoods all across the US. But you still have to think about it from the point of view yeah what happened to your friend really sucks a** but because of the law being the way it is there are a lot of parents out there who can be aware of any sick people living around them. The why I look at it is you have to take the good with the bad in life and when it comes to your kids you have to do all you can for them. The percentage of people who are wrongly convicted is very small, but it still happens. Hence: MipsyKitten Nikolita What I really want to say is if yes, the person is actually guilty, then it should be on their record for life. But if the person accused is innocent and there were some way to prove it, then I think it should be wiped off their record. Of course, proving it would be difficult I assume. I agree. An innocent person shouldn't have that label. It not only ruins their life, but their family's and close friends. You don't label someone a 'murderer' if they didn't do it, so why the same with 'child molester'? We're saying that if the person really did commit the crime, well of COURSE it should stay on their record for life. They're abusing children! But if someone is innocent, it should not stay on their record, for the reasons already stated and listed above. But if they have been convicted of it that means there had to have been some kind of proof or another and as a parent I just rather be able to know what kind of people I live around.And you cant always tell just because they seem nice because its always the ones you least expect that are guilty of horible crimes such as this and more. Now Im not saying every nice person you meet is a perve or a murder but s**t happens.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 11:02 pm
Savina Do you think that the Child Molestor label should be on someone's permenant record (and on local warning lists) for life? Do you think they can ever reform or become non-threats? I'm so torn on this, because we have a family friend who was honestly wrongly accused. Now his wife started a business, and so he wasn't a risk to her, he had to start his own side business aside from hers. His bitter ex-wife coached her 5 year old to say in court, "I witnessed my step-father lovingly caress my brother's p***s." The fact that he was convicted on that testimony is bullshit, but regardless, now he is a listed sex offender, and if you do state searches, his name, information, picture and crime are available to anyone. So, do you think this is a title people should ALWAYS be affected by, or it's something that could be revoked after X number of years, or after psychiatric evaluation? Right now, it's a lifelong thing. My little brother was in a similar situation we moved into this apartment complex and we met this family and they seemed to be in a rough patch and we had a little extra cash and resources so we took them under our wing. After six months of us supporting them I had the feeling we were being used and I let my mom and dad know about my suspicions cause I'm usually a good judge of character. Anyway my mom dismissed it as I'm angry with her for her getting me in trouble sometimes my dad, myself and my brothers were the only ones who felt that something was wrong. after two years we found out what it was. the family we took under our wing and helped was supposed to pay us back when they had the money and when they did give it to us they would borrow it right back to do god knows what with it and when we needed it back the most and told them we wouldn't be able to support them much longer they decided to accuse my little brother of molesting their daughter. my little brother didn't do this and it turns out it was the girls brother who molested her not me or my family. So she took us to court and my little brother was shy and quiet before this happened now he's a suicidal, volatile, angry person who lashes out now. We won the court thing and we are wondering if we get victims rights or anything, because they accused my innocent brother of this crime. He was on suicide watch for a long time and he was forcibly humiliated by the situation, because he didn't know what the charges were or what they meant. So they told him and he was even more humiliated. after we won the family proclaimed that they'd sue us civilly witch proved to my dad that they were after money in the beginning. Oh and the brother molested his sister also did this to two other girls too. Anyway if he didn't do it they really need to work hard to prove that and if so take off the sex offender title
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 11:06 pm
Kukushka That's what I mean, better ways of getting testamony. One could be looking at the child's vocabulary and making sure that the statement's vocabulary is consistent with the rest of the child's speech patterns. And yes, I do think that people can be too quick to judge in these cases because there's so much emotionality involved. Of course, I am mostly talking out of my a**. I've never stepped foot in a court room, much less for a child molestation case. Perhaps, if we made sentencing dependent on the case. For example, if it's one child's testamony and it's put in doubt (such as this case where the mother would have a motive for getting her child to say it), he could just be removed from the child but not have all the other stuff added on? Maybe? thats true the girl who accused my brother of molesting her had a severe speech impediment she talked like a baby and she was five years old oh and her dad was using sign language to her to get her to say my brother did it after the dad was forced out of the courtroom her testimony completely changed and of course she did not help things by sucking and blowing on the microphone as for the motive the mother wanted our money cause my dad was getting a huge settlement check
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|