Crackdown On Sexual Predators

[SoCalMark 49]

I am happy to see more and more posts in other social sites related to men who are being turned back from Manila due to a conviction for "RSO" - Registered Sex Offender.

In my opinion these creeps do not belong in a long distance trustful relationship with a Filipina. I have been sad for the girls that have had to report such an incident and posting the same thing over and over that "...they just didn't know why their fiancée had to be turned back for just chatting with a teenager..." You and I know that it takes a pretty substantial amount of evidence to convict these guys on such a crime. It is nice that the databases are now linked to the passports to keep these morons out of the country.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

Those people don't need to be chasing woman from any country.

[Al422 221]

Chatting with a teenager? Is that the lie they tell their ladies?

[A and T 82]

Well SoCalMark, its easy to be a "moral" crusader but facts are that RSOs are people too. Keep in mind these types are all lumped in together, so the guys that dated and had consensual sex more than a few years apart end up on the same list as those those that are raping small children etc. Streaking at a sports game can even get you on the RSO list, so its really best to not judge. If they have commited some terrible crime then they should still be in jail. If they had only a minor offense then at some point we have to let them live normal lives. Which would include being able to marry and have a family . I am all for keeping the very bad guys out of the philippines but at the same time they still have civil rights.

I think it would be better that each RSO be judged based on the laws of the philippines . The system is ripe for errors or issues, what if you fly here SoCalMark and lets say they mix your name up by accident and you are banned/blacklisted from entry and are left with no recourse? We don't really have any guide line as to whom is being blocked and for what reasons.

Filipina have a right to date and marry whom they like. They are intelligent women that are capable of making their own decisions.

Mods might as well lock the topic.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

Any person under the legal age can't be having consensual sex they lack the legal ability to do so. A fact sexual predators tend to distort as justification for rape

[A and T 82]

NigeriaorBust, believe it or not (this might be hard for you to grasp but stay with me). Rape has different classifications , and people are judged and sentenced according to those classifications. A person that has sex with someone against their own will , is far worse than someone that has consensual sex with someone thats underage in the eyes of the law. The law agrees with this, and thats why they have classifications and tiers. No one is justifying anything, ad hominem attacks will get you no where. Facts are stubborn things.

Regardless, people have a right to marry and be with family and loved ones.

It would be similar to saying that Nigeria is full of scammers, while that might be true we all know that doesn't mean everyone there is..

[Al422 221]

It makes sense to not have a blanket prohibition and instead decide each case on its own merits. Even more innocent than the streaker is someone skinny dipping in his private backyard pool. Although that is legal in most states, some acutally have laws that can make you an RSO if your neighbor looks over the fence and sees you.

No doubt the pedophile has no business victimizing Phil ladies (and her children, who he is probably after and not her), but the private skinnydipper? Are we prepared to lump him in the same group as the pedophile?

Edited May 17, 2014 by Al422

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Facts are stubborn indeed & Facts show that more than 50% of registered sex offenders go on to repeat their offense (& that's post therapy)....

Normal people don't streak - AKA = Exhibitionism.

Normal adults don't have sexual relations with minors ("consensual" or not)

Normal people don't commit sexual assault.

That's the behavior of abnormal people. Some abnormal people "rehabilitate" in one way or another..to one degree or another...but more than 50% do not.

A system flawed with errors...? = Better safe than sorry is the best approach - rather than risk subjecting innocent people to predators.

Life is full of consequences...good and bad...& sometimes consequences last a lifetime. I say = Good.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Crashed~N2~Me

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

NigeriaorBust, believe it or not (this might be hard for you to grasp but stay with me). Rape has different classifications , and people are judged and sentenced according to those classifications. A person that has sex with someone against their own will , is far worse than someone that has consensual sex with someone thats underage in the eyes of the law. The law agrees with this, and thats why they have classifications and tiers. No one is justifying anything, ad hominem attacks will get you no where. Facts are stubborn things.

Regardless, people have a right to marry and be with family and loved ones.

It would be similar to saying that Nigeria is full of scammers, while that might be true we all know that doesn't mean everyone there is..

Try to follow this then At 7 when I was first raped I did not fight the adult that came after me. Did that make it OK because I was underage and didn't fight ? You logic is the sickness that justifies the act of a criminal by implying the victim "consented" to the act and participated. I was not saying that all Americans are sex offenders I am saying sex offenders should not be allowed to go to ANY country stalk future victims. Usually they go to countries with lack laws and little respect for woman because they can victimize woman without fear. The man wacking off in the parking lot next to the preschool is just as sick as the man posing a 1st grader in nighties. They are both sick sub human life forms and should be restricted from free movement for their entire life. Just because laws like to think people are "reformed" do you get artificial classifications of these sickos that send them back into the world to repeat and repeat. Personally I think these people should be second in line for the death penalty , they may not have snuffed out a life but they certainly have destroyed one.

[sweet cakes 326]

RSOs are documented for a reason. This is one of it.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652194.pdf

To anybody against the policy barring RSO's travel overseas and petitioning a potential spouse from another country, talk it out with Interpol and uscis. You'll not get any support here from women and people who have high respect for women.

[Al422 221]

I don't think anyone will questioin that an ROS who committed these horrible crimes should stay as far away as possible from ladies and chilodren he seeks to victimize.

But some states really are stupid enough to make you an ROS for skinny dipping in your private backyard pool. As to streakers, yes there is something abnromal but it could be a stupid college prank that the offender is now mature enough to understand to be wrong.

The point is not every ROS is dangerous. Many if not most are, but there needs to be some safety valve for the private skinny dipper and the college streaker ho since grew up and others like those. So a blanket ban is really over the top.

[yannix 24]

 

But some states really are stupid enough to make you an ROS for skinny dipping in your private backyard pool. As to streakers, yes there is something abnromal but it could be a stupid college prank that the offender is now mature enough to understand to be wrong.

The point is not every ROS is dangerous. Many if not most are, but there needs to be some safety valve for the private skinny dipper and the college streaker ho since grew up and others like those. So a blanket ban is really over the top.

 

+1 A very slippery slope.

Some states also tag you as an sex offender if you are caught urinating in public. Some states require a child to be present, most don't. Now that is something that happens commonly in the Philippines. I hate to imagine the person who is barred from travelling because of this.

We all agree that the law's intent is good. The broadness of it catches a lot of other innocent people. Some view those are necessary casualties of war in the fight against sex offenders, others prefer to err on the side of caution.

[Al422 221]

There is no justice when laws are absoulte. I don't know who coiined that slogan, but it is a damnn good one.

Our legal system always searches for justice. And justice requires each case to be deterimined on its own merits, not on membership in a category. That is why judges offer plea bargains: You give up your legal right to a trial, we will give up our legal right to rigidily apply the law, and hopefully we will reach a just result.

Few areas are as tricky as in the application of RSO. Those are 3 horrible letters to wear on your forehead, but in the name of protecting society, often necessary, and supposedly those who wear those letters did some horrible crime such that they deserve it anyway.

But putting those letters on someone's forehead is a grave undertaking not to be lightly regarded. Many cases are easy: The rapes, the pedophiles, the abdoctors of women, the sex trafficker. But does someone who urinates in public deserve it? Maybe. Does a streaker deserve it? Probably not but still maybe. Does a skinnydipper at a public beach deserve it? How about someoe sunbathing nude in his backyard with every expectation that the privacy of his private yard will be respected? It gets harder to say Yes as you go down the line here, yet if you look at all laws in all 50 states, at least one of them says yes for each one of these cases.

This is why categorizing all RSOs is wrong. Each case deserves its own separate consideration.

[Leatherneck 693]

  

+1 A very slippery slope.

Some states also tag you as an sex offender if you are caught urinating in public. Some states require a child to be present, most don't. Now that is something that happens commonly in the Philippines. I hate to imagine the person who is barred from travelling because of this.

We all agree that the law's intent is good. The broadness of it catches a lot of other innocent people. Some view those are necessary casualties of war in the fight against sex offenders, others prefer to err on the side of caution.

Bingo!

Many folks hear/read the term 'sex offender' and think those in the database are all scum of the earth. Having no idea that something like urinating in an alley or behind a building, someone seeing you in your own home naked, or an 18 year old in a relationship (sexual) with a 17 yr old will get one tagged as and required to register as a SO in some states for 15 years.

Seems rather excessive to punish folks and require one to be added to a SO database for such simple acts. Registered sex offender status and databases should be reserved for those that are sexual predators, child molesters, rapist, etc., rather than a wide net for things that have nothing to do with protecting women and children.

[novedsac 355]

yeah … there was a guy posted on this board not too long ago inquiring about AWA. Apparently he is a RSO because he urinated on / behind a public monument or in the car park of a public monument. Disgusting - sure! Dangerous - hardly!

I remember a story aired on 60 minutes or some other national TV show a few years ago … it was the story of a family harshly impacted by RSO laws. The husband/father had dated his wife when she was 16/17 and he was 19/20. Well, she got pregnant and her mother went ballistic and the guy was arrested and tried for statutory rape and one of the consequences was that he had to register for life. Fast forward 10-15 yrs - they were happily married and had a few children; his mother-in-law had come around and really liked him and from all reports he was a hard working father, faithful husband and attentive to the needs of his family. However, he can never go to his children's school for a play, for a teacher conference, to pick them up upon dismissal, to attend to them if they are sick, etc. There've been run-ins with nosey neighbors who don't take the time to question what the circumstances are. Issues with jobs. From what I heard, it seemed like the family had suffered far more punishment than they deserved.

The intentions are good - but the system is severely flawed. The system needs a way to differentiate from those who are/potentially will be a threat from those who have never done anything threatening to begin with. Even people with a high respect for women see the need for change and support an overhaul of the system (there are women registered as sex offenders too, by the way).

I think it's easy for people assume that someone on a registered sex offender registry is some kind of social nut job and, well, the risk to their kids is significant enough that if the offender is not really dangerous, oh well, better safe than sorry.

Kinda reminds me of the morons who ostracized Ryan White for having AIDS.