Should Sex Offenders Be Barred from Church?

[The_Dude 1,142]

I hate to say it, but MC has taken on the role traditionally held by Joe of "Obstinately Wrong" in this thread

That is your opinion. However, as GH has suggested, take a look at what these laws are creating. Sex offenders are all branded as pedophiles and rapists when the reality is, they are not. Even those who have committed bad offenses need to be able to live their lives in a fashion that contains their behaviours, not creates the conditions for further wrong doing. An emphasis on exclusion gives a false sense of security and worse.

I never meant to imply that it was some sort of cure all. I just would like to filter out as many potentially dangerous situations my child will encounter as I possibly can.

I think one of the downfalls of the current sex-offender registration system is that there is little differentiation. I went to high school with a guy who is now a sex-registrant because he thought he'd be funny and hung his ####### out the window of his friends car at a football game. My disdain is reserved for rapists, but would I let my kid around the guy I went to school with? Certainly not, he's a tool who was dumb enough to write a message on his ####### with makeup and hang it out the window. How dumb can you get?

Without knowing the offense of the sex offender, how is banning them from church sensible? Yes, of course, limit dangerous situations, but real ones, not imagined.

I suppose we have arrived at the crux of my argument. To assume hysterically that all sex offenders are child rapists is wrong. As is the system that essentially treats all sex-offenders in this manner.

[chri'stina 190]

The fact is, and you can see it plainly in this thread, is that the entire public debate about sex offenders is driven entirely by hysteria and fear.

??? People being passionate about a subject does not mean hysteria. I find it hard that people can disconnect from the emotion of the crime when it's against children. It's like if you want to think about acts against slaves, when they were treated like dirt. Should we not feel some sort of emotion? Or was that just one person committing an act against another? There are issues when one is stronger than the other or has a far higher advantage. In those cases the overused word "outrage" should be used.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I suppose we have arrived at the crux of my argument. To assume hysterically that all sex offenders are child rapists is wrong. As is the system that essentially treats all sex-offenders in this manner.

Correct. They are not all child rapists - but those who are should absolutely not be allowed anywhere near children.

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree that that is one of the biggest problems, that all sex offenders are treated like pariah's when clearly not all are.

How one should deal with the worst and most dangerous is a very difficult topic. The solution of course is a real therapy/treatment that deals with the urge to offend. Not a quick or easy solution but one that needs to be pursued.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Chica Yeyé 41]

The fact is, and you can see it plainly in this thread, is that the entire public debate about sex offenders is driven entirely by hysteria and fear.

??? People being passionate about a subject does not mean hysteria. I find it hard that people can disconnect from the emotion of the crime when it's against children. It's like if you want to think about acts against slaves, when they were treated like dirt. Should we not feel some sort of emotion? Or was that just one person committing an act against another? There are issues when one is stronger than the other or has a far higher advantage. In those cases the overused word "outrage" should be used.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The fact is, and you can see it plainly in this thread, is that the entire public debate about sex offenders is driven entirely by hysteria and fear.

??? People being passionate about a subject does not mean hysteria. I find it hard that people can disconnect from the emotion of the crime when it's against children. It's like if you want to think about acts against slaves, when they were treated like dirt. Should we not feel some sort of emotion? Or was that just one person committing an act against another? There are issues when one is stronger than the other or has a far higher advantage. In those cases the overused word "outrage" should be used.

Oh come on Christina - on this subject!? That's absolutely the case!

In this thread alone we have people here calling for public executions, castrations and the like - regardless of the fact that such things currently aren't legal and under our system of justice will likely never be. So what are the solutions here - if people are forever screaming for things that will never happen (at least, not in a country that supposedly prides itself on civil liberties), then there is no debate - much less a rational one.

Outside of this thread you have the media reporting of the issue, which in the main creates a distorted picture of the problem (hell, it had to be pointed out that "sex offender" doesn't automatically mean "child predator"). I don't suppose you heard about what happened in the UK a few years ago after a tabloid newspaper took it upon itself to publish the names and approximate addresses of people on the sexual offenders register there? There was vigilante violence against people who looked like the photos in the newspaper - and in one case, a registered pediatrician had a rock thrown through his window and was besieged in his home by an angry mob!

It's fvcking insane.

As I pointed out if you strip away the emotional element there are very simple practical arguments - either work to get tougher laws or find ways to co-exist with the folks you don't like. Those are the only sensible and viable options.

[almaty 19]

the issue is what is an sex offender per state laws....there is a different view in states were....a 13 year old dating a 17 year old with parental approval is illegal and falls under the statutes in illinois

[Danno 1,228]

IT seems that the "sex offender" grouping needs to be divided into different classes.

There is a huge difference between a creep peeking in the womans shower at a camp-ground and someone having sex with children.

Any one who has been convicted of sex related offenses concerning children has NO PLACE IN ANY HOUSE OF WORSHIP where children might be present.

While a prior offender might have the most sincere reasons for attending church...

Church atmosphere creates a whole host of opportunities and situations that a molester would not normally face anyplace else.

IN Churches children suspend their rules of "beware of strangers", they often call adults "bother or Sister" embrace people they really don't know well as a tradition and habit, and place considerable trust in any adult.

The safety of children are much more paramount than the rights of a former child offender.

Tens of thousands of people enjoy the Church-hour on TV and radio,

There are many religious groups which gather in different settings, (mens groups/ womans groups) where it is more devoted to serious study and these might be options but traditional church is and should be out of the question.

I also disagree with the concept of calling it an "illness", as AJ has.

While there are some cases where this is a reality, I reject this as a blanket statement as it does not stand up to logic.

[chri'stina 190]

The fact is, and you can see it plainly in this thread, is that the entire public debate about sex offenders is driven entirely by hysteria and fear.

??? People being passionate about a subject does not mean hysteria. I find it hard that people can disconnect from the emotion of the crime when it's against children. It's like if you want to think about acts against slaves, when they were treated like dirt. Should we not feel some sort of emotion? Or was that just one person committing an act against another? There are issues when one is stronger than the other or has a far higher advantage. In those cases the overused word "outrage" should be used.

Oh come on Christina - on this subject!? That's absolutely the case!

In this thread alone we have people here calling for public executions, castrations and the like - regardless of the fact that such things currently aren't legal and under our system of justice will likely never be. So what are the solutions here - if people are forever screaming for things that will never happen (at least, not in a country that supposedly prides itself on civil liberties), then there is no debate - much less a rational one.

Outside of this thread you have the media reporting of the issue, which in the main creates a distorted picture of the problem (hell, it had to be pointed out that "sex offender" doesn't automatically mean "child predator"). I don't suppose you heard about what happened in the UK a few years ago after a tabloid newspaper took it upon itself to publish the names and approximate addresses of people on the sexual offenders register there? There was vigilante violence against people who looked like the photos in the newspaper - and in one case, a registered pediatrician had a rock thrown through his window and was besieged in his home by an angry mob!

It's fvcking insane.

As I pointed out if you strip away the emotional element there are very simple practical arguments - either work to get tougher laws or find ways to co-exist with the folks you don't like. Those are the only sensible and viable options.

Yes and I propose castration laws!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the issue is what is an sex offender per state laws....there is a different view in states were....a 13 year old dating a 17 year old with parental approval is illegal and falls under the statutes in illinois

Yeah the 21 y/o son of a friend of mine got in trouble a while back because he was having sex with his 17 y/o gf.

That apparently made him a sex offender.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its pathological behavior, in many cases, Danno. Hence its an 'illness.' That does not mean that its uncontrollable (intrinsically or extrinsically).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The fact is, and you can see it plainly in this thread, is that the entire public debate about sex offenders is driven entirely by hysteria and fear.

??? People being passionate about a subject does not mean hysteria. I find it hard that people can disconnect from the emotion of the crime when it's against children. It's like if you want to think about acts against slaves, when they were treated like dirt. Should we not feel some sort of emotion? Or was that just one person committing an act against another? There are issues when one is stronger than the other or has a far higher advantage. In those cases the overused word "outrage" should be used.

Oh come on Christina - on this subject!? That's absolutely the case!

In this thread alone we have people here calling for public executions, castrations and the like - regardless of the fact that such things currently aren't legal and under our system of justice will likely never be. So what are the solutions here - if people are forever screaming for things that will never happen (at least, not in a country that supposedly prides itself on civil liberties), then there is no debate - much less a rational one.

Outside of this thread you have the media reporting of the issue, which in the main creates a distorted picture of the problem (hell, it had to be pointed out that "sex offender" doesn't automatically mean "child predator"). I don't suppose you heard about what happened in the UK a few years ago after a tabloid newspaper took it upon itself to publish the names and approximate addresses of people on the sexual offenders register there? There was vigilante violence against people who looked like the photos in the newspaper - and in one case, a registered pediatrician had a rock thrown through his window and was besieged in his home by an angry mob!

It's fvcking insane.

As I pointed out if you strip away the emotional element there are very simple practical arguments - either work to get tougher laws or find ways to co-exist with the folks you don't like. Those are the only sensible and viable options.

Yes and I propose castration laws!

Which as I told you isn't an option, unless you want to dispense with the system of justice (and related values) and bring in something akin to what you might see in Saudi Arabia.

It beggars belief to me that people who are first to slam the human rights abuses in other countries are often the same ones who turn around and decry our justice system for its lack of barbaric medieval punishments.

[almaty 19]

the issue is what is an sex offender per state laws....there is a different view in states were....a 13 year old dating a 17 year old with parental approval is illegal and falls under the statutes in illinois

Yeah the 21 y/o son of a friend of mine got in trouble a while back because he was having sex with his 17 y/o gf.

That apparently made him a sex offender.

yes the 4 yeard difference law...in allot of states...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the issue is what is an sex offender per state laws....there is a different view in states were....a 13 year old dating a 17 year old with parental approval is illegal and falls under the statutes in illinois

Yeah the 21 y/o son of a friend of mine got in trouble a while back because he was having sex with his 17 y/o gf.

That apparently made him a sex offender.

yes the 4 yeard difference law...in allot of states...

It was very fvcked up what happened there. The DA was trying to spin the case from statutory rape to 1st degree!

[HAL 9000 96]

the issue is what is an sex offender per state laws....there is a different view in states were....a 13 year old dating a 17 year old with parental approval is illegal and falls under the statutes in illinois

Yeah the 21 y/o son of a friend of mine got in trouble a while back because he was having sex with his 17 y/o gf.

That apparently made him a sex offender.

yes the 4 yeard difference law...in allot of states...

With <16 year olds... well... sure. But 17? The law can get pretty silly sometimes, IMO.