Sex Offender Sues Every Prosecutor In Indiana

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They may not currently present a danger, but I don't think that molesting a child is a one-time "lapse of judgement". These people are sinister and sick.

There are alot of ####### parents out there who are incompetent to shield their children from these people. That doesn't mean that the children don't deserve protection from these predators.

In the end, this law is about protecting children, not stripping rights away from child molesters.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[SteveLaura 0]

I don't see how we couldn't know what the ages are of the offender and the victim (assuming the molestor is caught). When the offender is brought into custody, the police will be able to find out his information, including age. The age of the victim will already be known to law enforcement. So the age of the two (or more, which could happen) involved will be known.

As far as him being significantly older, he doesn't have to be. Depending on the laws of the state in question, his and her ages at the time, he could merely few a couple of years older than she is and still be tried in court for molestation and statutory rape. The latter can be very unfair in that even if the female is willing it doesn't matter -- if she's underage and the male isn't, he can still be arrested, tried and sentenced for the crime.

I was talking about the string-em-up brigade that these threads tend to produce, not the court system. The article says NOTHING about the circumstances of this case. The evocative phrase "child molestation" lets us fill in the gaps, but does not necessarily give us any details. It is entirely plausible that he was 18 and she was 15. He would still be on the sex offenders registry. He would still have been charged with child molestation. However, I would argue that we have no obvious need to monitor his internet usage over ten years later.

Edited April 10, 2008 by SteveLaura

[Heracles 417]

why care if people are checking your computer at anytime if you're not doing anything wrong?

Why can law enforcement not get a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion that someone has broken the law? Otherwise, as I said earlier, lets get rid of the courts altogether and welcome the police state where the police is your judge and jury as well.

yes because law enforcement has nothing better to do than going through the courts to get warrants. Now try doing this with 100,000 sex offenders.

Police state my ###. Law enforcement needs to be proactive rather than reactive.

[Heracles 417]

america was founded on rights.....except for slaves...and now, sex offenders..

What about the rights of the victims. Who protects them. Or are they just collateral damage of an so-called free society..

The other biggest bunch of BS I have ever seen in a nation is how people get a document and twist and turn it to suite their own needs and interpretation. Something once deemed common sense now needs to be legislated against. Simple as that. Its like gezz people they did not have the internet back then. Nor were they able to even conceptualize that someone would you a system called the internet to trick and lure kids. How many kids go missing every day that are never to be found. Probably dead or locked up in some sick fucks house being abused. I am more interested in protecting these human being's rights than the x amendment of some sick person.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again there's no precedent for Thought Crime. You seem to be suggesting that there should be.

[Heracles 417]

The crime happened over ten years ago. It's possible the bloke was 18 and he felt up a 15 year old. Why would we need to see his computer usage now, if so?

He is one guy. They did not propose the law for this guy alone.

But yes the laws should be amended to stop silly cases like these being classified as sex crimes. Allowing the police can focus on real crimes rather than some dip #### being upset his daughter was with another guy.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

Again there's no precedent for Thought Crime. You seem to be suggesting that there should be.

I am not talking about thought crime. I am talking about proactive police work. Police work to reflect the changing world. The technology and means is now there for the police to help prevent crime rather than deal with it once it happens.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again there's no precedent for Thought Crime. You seem to be suggesting that there should be.

I am not talking about thought crime. I am talking about proactive police work. Police work to reflect the changing world. The technology and means is now there for the police to help prevent crime rather than deal with it once it happens.

Reasonable suspicion is one of the checks and balances in the judicial system, as is due process. Legally this kind of warrantless surveillance sounds very dodgy to me. But then again I'm no lawyer.

[Heracles 417]

Again there's no precedent for Thought Crime. You seem to be suggesting that there should be.

I am not talking about thought crime. I am talking about proactive police work. Police work to reflect the changing world. The technology and means is now there for the police to help prevent crime rather than deal with it once it happens.

Reasonable suspicion is one of the checks and balances in the judicial system, as is due process. Legally this kind of warrantless surveillance sounds very dodgy to me. But then again I'm no lawyer.

Checks and balances. Let me ask the thousands of kids kidnapped and killed how well this checks and balances is working for them. Oh wait they're dead. My bad. Better luck next time hey kiddies..

The second someone commits a major crime they should forfeit their rights. Combined with a zero tolerance policy for repeat offenders. With the status quo the ball is always in the criminals court. Hence why they always have the upper hand on the police and their victims. A country needs to back good honest people; not criminals.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually statistically this crime is quite rare. What's not rare (or proportional) is the public hysteria and overreaction to it.

[mRx 16]

They may not currently present a danger, but I don't think that molesting a child is a one-time "lapse of judgement". These people are sinister and sick.

There are alot of ####### parents out there who are incompetent to shield their children from these people. That doesn't mean that the children don't deserve protection from these predators.

In the end, this law is about protecting children, not stripping rights away from child molesters.

The connection you're trying to make between monitoring child molesters and total government power is weak.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Matt85

[Heracles 417]

Actually statistically this crime is quite rare. What's not rare (or proportional) is the public hysteria and overreaction to it.

I prefer the UK / Australian approach where even one child missing is one too many.

[Heracles 417]

The connection your trying to make between monitoring child molesters and total government power is weak.

I would like to see what he says if some sex offender targeted his child. I bet a million bucks he would be demanding changes and answers. Whereas I never want to see / hear of anyone harming a child.

Prevention is always better than cure. No ifs or buts about it..

Edited April 10, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[HAL 9000 96]

There isn't really a precedent for Thought Crime - I can't see how this will stand to be honest.

As I say - there should be action taken to ensure that people who represent a danger to others are kept out of society. These patchwork local laws aren't that.

Thought offenders... kind of like that Tom Cruise movie... Minority Report.

[SteveLaura 0]

The connection your trying to make between monitoring child molesters and total government power is weak.

I would like to see what he says if some sex offender targeted his child. I bet a million bucks he would be demanding changes and answers. Whereas I never want to see / hear of anyone harming a child.

Prevention is always better than cure. No ifs or buts about it..

That's why anyone connected with the victims aren't allowed on juries. It doesn't, however, lessen the arguments presented here.