TC4 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4733522.stm State to put rapists on posters The US state of Mississippi plans to put the names and faces of convicted sex offenders on roadside billboards. About 100 posters showing offenders, particularly those who prey on minors, will be put up, a state official said. Don Taylor, head of the state's Department of Human Services, told a local newspaper the aim was to make the public aware of their crimes. But human rights campaigners say the measure is unnecessary as the public is already aware once convicts are jailed. Mr Taylor is especially keen to name and shame those who make minors pregnant. He says he wants the state's health department to check the ages parents list on new-borns' birth certificates and report to him any cases of statutory rape. The age of consent in Mississippi is 16, but mothers in the state sometimes are listed as being as young as 10, Mr Taylor told the local Clarion-Ledger newspaper. Mississippi has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the US. He said the statistics had helped him determine that 111 men were guilty of statutory rape in the year 2002 alone. "So, if you want to get your name and face in high places, get convicted," he told the newspaper. The American Civil Liberties Union in Mississippi said the billboards would be a waste of money. "Why is it necessary to put them on billboards if they're already serving?" its head, Nsombi Lambright, asked. "If they have criminal charges before them, the information is public, the victims are notified. The people already know in these communities who these folks are once they're arrested." It is not the first time Mr Taylor's department has used controversial means to highlight problems. Among others, it has "Mississippi's Ten Most Wanted" posters of parents who have failed to pay child support. A few US states require sex offenders to be identified as such on their driver's licences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 This just seems tacky and distasteful to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Here comes your first cruel and unusual punishment lawsuit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 they can't use the word deterent, but that's the intended purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Here comes your first cruel and unusual punishment lawsuit... And to those people, I would say :stfu: When you raped that young lady, or child, or whatever thing you WEREN'T suposed to, you lost your right to privacy. STFU. I'm sure this will anger a few people here, but as one of my co-workers said today: "Liberals would rather die than say anything that MIGHT offend someone". Why not protect my rights, hell, my daughters' rights at the expense of someone who (should have) lost theirs? Great idea, in my book. Wow, I kind of spiralled on that one! Hot button, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Put up their addresses too. F***'em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Put up their addresses too. ding ding ding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 And to those people, I would say :stfu: When you raped that young lady, or child, or whatever thing you WEREN'T suposed to, you lost your right to privacy. STFU. I'm sure this will anger a few people here, but as one of my co-workers said today: "Liberals would rather die than say anything that MIGHT offend someone". Why not protect my rights, hell, my daughters' rights at the expense of someone who (should have) lost theirs? Great idea, in my book. Wow, I kind of spiralled on that one! Hot button, anyone? Awhile back there was talk of chemical castration as an option to serving jailtime (the convicts option). If it was up to me, the convicted rapist (not statuatory) would lose his jewels, one eye and one hand. Think of the deterent-fear of losing the other eye and hand along with the stigma of public knowledge that a you were a two time convict. you couldn't even beg for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashburnskinsfan Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 There already are databases available in many states where you can search to see if the names, addresses and photos of registered offenders in your area. Billboards seem tacky and you would wonder if this will prevent crime being committed. But when vigilante acts against offenders occurs, it will be interesting to see if local law enforcement takes them seriously or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Here comes your first cruel and unusual punishment lawsuit... yo Iheart do punishments have to be cruel AND unusual or are both cruel and unusual punishments banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Why do we jail people? To rehabilitate, to punish, and/or to deter. If these people cannot be rehabbed, then why waste state money to keep them alive? Therefore, they should all be killed. If a jury finds these criminals guilty, they designate the punishment and that is the punishment they serve, if there are to be additional punishments to be added it is up to a jury to decide. And besides anecdotal evidence, can anyone actually prove that this policy is a deterrent? What about women who get raped who never admit to it? What about rapists that are never caught? This is a stupid policy that is a weak attempt to show that the legislators are "tough on crime." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I'm not sure this is a bad thing... but the question that pops into my head is where do we draw the line? Which crimes are billboard worthy, which are not? Write a bad check, face on a billboard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 they can't use the word deterent, but that's the intended purpose. No it isn't. The intended purpose is "See! My anti-crime publicity stunt is even more spectacular than other politicians!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I'm not sure this is a bad thing...but the question that pops into my head is where do we draw the line? Which crimes are billboard worthy, which are not? Write a bad check, face on a billboard? That's what I was thinking. Everyone knows anyone who preys on the young is demented, but where do we draw the line? Afterall, these people have "served their debt to society." What about murderers? What about a drunk driver who killed someone? Do we put their faces on a billboard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 There already are databases available in many states where you can search to see if the names, addresses and photos of registered offenders in your area. Billboards seem tacky and you would wonder if this will prevent crime being committed.But when vigilante acts against offenders occurs, it will be interesting to see if local law enforcement takes them seriously or not. I don't have a problem with the databases, if that was part of the sentance when the crime was committed. I do have a problem with the state deciding that even though your sentance was 3 years (or whatever), now we're going to retroactively sentance you to an additional lifetime of being publicly pilloried. (A punishment which, I believe, was prohibited as being 'cruel or unusual'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Let's put pictures of them in their underwear up too. Oh wait I know let's also make them drive lime green cars with sex offender written in pink all over them. Then we can tattoo their Hitler mustaches on their faces. ....this isn't justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Let's put pictures of them in their underwear up too. Oh wait I know let's also make them drive lime green cars with sex offender written in pink all over them. Then we can tattoo their Hitler mustaches on their faces. ....this isn't justice it's a circus. I do understand that some states, including Texas, require people with DUI convictions to put "DUI" licence plates on their cars for a certain number of years. I read about when Oklahoma, where I was living, issued a run of licence plates begining with "DUI" (because it was those letters turn), and folks objected to the plates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I'm not sure this is a bad thing...but the question that pops into my head is where do we draw the line? Which crimes are billboard worthy, which are not? Write a bad check, face on a billboard? The St. Pete times, for years now, has been listing "johns" ,men who get caught in prostitution sting ops, names in the paper. It had a marked affect on street prostitution. I suggested that the local Contractor licensing board post individuals or companies convicted of "contracting without a license" names on thier website. They are considering it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 That's what I was thinking. Everyone knows anyone who preys on the young is demented, but where do we draw the line? Afterall, these people have "served their debt to society." What about murderers? What about a drunk driver who killed someone? Do we put their faces on a billboard? What about the drunk driver's victim? Their rights were taken away from them. So would it be a horrible thing for people to know what you have done? It all comes back to responsibility. If you were dumb enough to get behind the wheel of a car while drunk, live with the consequences. I don't have a problem with the databases, if that was part of the sentance when the crime was committed. I do have a problem with the state deciding that even though your sentance was 3 years (or whatever), now we're going to retroactively sentance you to an additional lifetime of being publicly pilloried. (A punishment which, I believe, was prohibited as being 'cruel or unusual'). Couldn't agree more. Can't be retroactive. But make sure eveyone understands how the new system works. Let's put pictures of them in their underwear up too. Oh wait I know let's also make them drive lime green cars with sex offender written in pink all over them. Then we can tattoo their Hitler mustaches on their faces. ....this isn't justice. What is justice? Ask the women or children who's lives have been violated what justice would be. I have a feeling their answer might be different. If this would work at all as a preventative measure, whats the problem? As someone also said about the license plates in Texas, if you are driving behind someone who has a DUI on thier license plate, aren't you more apt to be more on guard, maybe even find another route home? At the same point, if you see someone's face day after day on a billboard, and then meet them in a bar and they offer to take you home, might you not refuse? Stop worrying so damn much about the people who have forfeited their rights. Think about the victims who have had thier rights violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC4 Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 I remember seeing the latest Dennis Miller HBO comedy special where he does about an hour of stand up, and he talked about how some people wanted to use GPS or some other kind of radar detection for rapists and child molesters He had what he considered a better idea. He called it burial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Stop worrying so damn much about the people who have forfeited their rights. Think about the victims who have had thier rights violated. :applause: Every sexual predators name and photo is already posted online in searchable databases. Its already part of the sentence. This just makes the information more accessable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 :applause: Every sexual predators name and photo is already posted online in searchable databases. Its already part of the sentence. This just makes the information more accessable. Exactly. Allows it to be used as a preventative measure, possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Every sexual predators name and photo is already posted online in searchable databases. Its already part of the sentence. This just makes the information more accessable. Uh, #1, no, I don't think it was part of the sentance. I think a lot of states decided to do it retroactively. #2, I believe that the term "sex offender" is getting stretched a lot, too. Example: I understand that there at least was, 10 years ago, a guy serving 30 years in jail for performing oral sex on his wife, in their home. Seems these folks were having sex in their apartment, and some kids were peeking through the window, and their parents heard the kids talking about it. Parents call the cops, and announce that Something Must Be Done. DA investigates, and decided he can't prosecute for having sex in public, because while their curtains were open, the kids had to slither under some shrubery to get at the window. So he decided to prosecute for sodomy. Conviction. But it seems the state had some new mandatory sentancing rules for sex offenders. 30 years. (I hope he's been released by now.) Now, I can live with notifying the public when somebody who's been convicted of kidnapping, raping, and murdering eight-year-olds is in the area. OTOH, I don't think the guy above (the wife "sodomizer") deserves, for the rest of his life, for public-minded vigilantes to be posting his picture, with the words "Sex Offender", and directions to his house and his work, all over town. Same thing for the 15-year-old boy who has sex with a 14-year-old girl. Does he deserve to have the words "Child Rapist" (interesting pun, there) tatooed on his forehead? Some "sex offenders" deserve things like that. Others don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Now, I can live with notifying the public when somebody who's been convicted of kidnapping, raping, and murdering eight-year-olds is in the area. OTOH, I don't think the guy above (the wife "sodomizer") deserves, for the rest of his life, for public-minded vigilantes to be posting his picture, with the words "Sex Offender", and directions to his house and his work, all over town. Same thing for the 15-year-old boy who has sex with a 14-year-old girl. Does he deserve to have the words "Child Rapist" (interesting pun, there) tatooed on his forehead? Some "sex offenders" deserve things like that. Others don't. Good point. I can see that, and I would agree that performing oral sex on your wife does not deserve that sentance. Nor does the 15 year old example. But, as you said, some do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulwhy Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 :applause: Every sexual predators name and photo is already posted online in searchable databases. Its already part of the sentence. This just makes the information more accessable. not everyone has internet access I like the whole public humiliation thing anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.