ShoreSkins Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I have no problem at all letting the people of the state know what is going on in their state. I'm not supporting vigilantism or anything else, I just don't see a problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hueman Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I normally side with the ACLU on these kinds of things, but i say we do it in cases of statutory rape, child molestation/rape, and at the discretion of the jury. it'd be a fun conversation starter and a great pick-me-up on road trips. and i don't think a 15 yr old can be prosecuted for having sex with a 14 yr old... only adults, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Excelllent. Brand a big red "R" on their foreheads as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 What a good idea. After they catch them and kill them, they should put their bodies on the billboards also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I think that you lose all rights if you commit a sex crime on the level of Rape and Molestation. Instead of the Billboard, I say just ignore them completely like the tribes used to do when someone shamed them. Persona non grata, baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoreSkins Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If you have committed a serious act of violence against someone, and the state has prosecuted and convicted you, the rest of the state has a right to know. These pictures are available on web sites and in the paper. Its just another form of communicating the information. I understand the intent is somewhat different, but still if these folks were prosecuted and convicted of serious violent crimes, why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 What do we all say in this country? Everybody has a right to a fair trial and if convicted, they serve their debt to society. I'm just not a fan of public humiliation. Also, what about the victom? Do you think they want to see their attacker on a billboard? They probably wouldn't want to see his/her face ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoreSkins Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 What do we all say in this country? Everybody has a right to a fair trial and if convicted, they serve their debt to society. I'm just not a fan of public humiliation. Also, what about the victom? Do you think they want to see their attacker on a billboard? They probably wouldn't want to see his/her face ever again. Fair enough. If the victim objects then the picture should not go up. Now about the public humiliation, I don't have an issue with that. There are photos on the web, in newspapers, on TV and I don't see a real difference. Perhaps a little public humiliation would serve a purpose. Again, I'm talking about people convicted of a violent sexual crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'm telling you, Ostracizing should be the best plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'm telling you, Ostracizing should be the best plan That might hurt someone's feeeeeelings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 That might hurt someone's feeeeeelings Hope so. I also like the idea of the "island of misfit toys" except this time no damned reindeer and gay dentist elf come to rescue them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 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. They probably dont have enough billboards for EVERY convicted sex offender. So they can just put your standard run-of-the-mill rapists and child molesters on the ones they do have. Probably wont have room for your ONE example that you believe refutes the whole premise. For me, im not looking at the abstract "what if this one possibility happens" oh-no! Im thinking about this ****ing ******* that lives 1.9 miles away from me: http://sex-offender.vsp.state.va.us/cool-ice/default.asp?Category=VSP&Service=VSP_SOF_Record&RRG=13808 Convicted of taking "indecent liberites with children." THREE ****ING TIMES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 That might hurt someone's feeeeeelings Could you point out someone concerned with feelings here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Could you point out someone concerned with feelings here? I'm not. I'm concerned with potential victims and the actual victims. Novel idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 My problem is - I think billboards should be illegal. Vermont is on to something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 What about a drunk driver who killed someone? Do we put their faces on a billboard? Actually there has been talk at least up here of giving them special license plates, or put it on their Drivers license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Another point I think everyone's missing is if you put their faces on billboards, aren't you taking away their civil rights? Lets be honest here, if you owned a buisness, would you hire a rapist/molester who's face is on a billboard? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Ask the women or children who's lives have been violated what justice would be. I have a feeling their answer might be different. That's exactly why victims don't do the sentencing in this country. Anyway, is this really what Mississippi wants to be doing? Announcing their problems to tourists? "Welcome to Mississippi, land of the rapists!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell1106 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 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. Isn't that what Sadaam use to do when violators were caught and sent before the judge? Interesting idea :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Stupid idea. How about having the punishment fit the crime. Child Molestation should carry a mandatory sentence of life in jail. I wouldn't rule out capital punishment either, but that would never fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell1106 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 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. And the righties out there who obviously don't have any respect or admiration of the judicial system in allowing the individual to pay the price by serving his prison sentence or whatever the punishment, to put the law into the legislators hands and extend the punishment. I don't have any respect for these people but will they ever get a fair shot in life subsequent to serving their time or are they doomed for life, especially when considering what this guy wants to do with their photos and billboards? Not what the three bodies of government were set up for, IMO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 This just seems tacky and distasteful to me. Yeah, thank God rape and child molestation isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Yeah, thank God **** and child molestation isn't. Yep, you caught me. I think **** is very tasteful. Good retort by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Stupid idea. How about having the punishment fit the crime. Child Molestation should carry a mandatory sentence of life in jail. I wouldn't rule out capital punishment either, but that would never fly. now punishment fitting the crime, now wouldn't that mean they get molested themselves? Or how about subjecting them to extreme mental torture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 now punishment fitting the crime, now wouldn't that mean they get molested themselves? Or how about subjecting them to extreme mental torture? Or have someone bigger and stronger than they are forcibly rape them? An eye for an eye. OH NO, but putting them up on a billboard is distasteful. Stop, youre making my eyes tear up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.