Student Suspended For Sexual Harrassment - Wearing A Costume To Another School's Prom

[The ClayTaurus]

A convicted child molester should never be allowed to walk free in society. This is a sign of insanity, the recidivism rate of molesters is simply too high to think that we should ever allow anybody convicted of this crime out of prison.

However not allowing them to live next to a school is after the fact of conviction, it is not solely preventative but a continuation of punishment.

I agree with the sentiment, but doesn't that set a precedent that you can just add on to someone's sentences after the fact? Shouldn't the sentence say "you can no longer live next to a school?"

I dunno, I'm very torn on this. I don't want predators harming people, but it seems like after-the-fact punishments and restrictions are being tacked on after someone has served their sentence... it would be nice if this was handled up front...

 

[GotZoom]

It should be one or the other with child molestors. EIther we put them in jail for the rest of their lives (or kill em) or let them live their life as a rehabilitated person. We can't keep punishing a person after they've gone to jail and paid their debt to society. Change the laws on how long to punish them or keep them the way they are and live the people alone. If they commit a crime again, then send em back to jail. Thats how a criminal system works. How can we keep punishing people after theyve done their time?

Child molestors will never pay their debt to society.

 

[no1tovote4]

I agree 100%.

In using insein's argument (which is why I asked the question), if the molester has paid his debt to society, the living next to a school is preventative.

He answered your question, and was consistent with his beliefs...

I think that making laws about where they live after getting out of prison is acknowledging the problem of recidivism without really doing anything about it. These people are too damaged to be allowed into society creating victims of the most innocent among us.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

DUI's IMO are ridiculous. If a person hasnt crashed or injured another person, what have they done then? Its like the minority Report. We think that you are going to commit a murder so we are putting you in jail right now for their own and your own good. DUI places you in jail for up to 2 years, gives you a thousand dollar fine, takes away your driver's license when you get out of jail so you can't go anywhere and is a black mark on your record for the rest of your life preventing you from getting a legitimate job etc. That to me is excessive punishment for someone that didnt harm anyone else.

Make the legal limit at an actual amount of alcohol that can intoxicate. Most states, especially here in PA, have the legal limit so low that a shot of nyquil puts you over the legal limit. I think if an officer sees someone swerving and out of control, they pull them over. If they are then drunk over that actual limit, hold them jail till they sober up, give them a fine and send them on their way.

Now if the person kills another in a car accident, then thats different. Try them for manslaughter or murder in the 2nd degree and go about it that way. I don't like "preventative" laws because they end up ruining more lives then they save.

I will say that you are at least quite consistent on your message.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I guess someone should tell that to the stock holders that keep making money off of playboy alone. I mean if they own stock in an illegal product, then they are going to jail. All 223,000 of them. My god. then add that to Playboy's 4 million sales a year and your talking about a very crowded jail just from playboy sunscribers. Then lets throw all the people who ever made porn, bought porn, looked at porn or caught a glimpse of porn on a cable channel at 3 in the morning on a saturday into jail as well. I guess that leaves us with a total of 37 people left in the country who arent criminals. Have fun running things while the rest of us are in jail.

You my friend want to throw good honest people into jail for something that you find immoral. Something that has no harm to you, to your kids or to society as a whole and yet you want to make them into criminals. Its the same argument for drug users. "Well they smoked marijuana and that can lead to harder drugs and really ruin their lives. Lets send them to jail for their own good." Great idea genious. Its idiots like you that we have such an overcrowded jail system to begin with. You keep wanting to make laws that restrict more freedoms on what people can do. Thus you make innocent people into criminals. Why? because they intentionally created a harm to society? No because they broke a law created by a politician to either appease a special interest group that gives them money or to directly make money off of the law itself. (seatbelts, DUI, speeding)

BOTTOMLINE, you don't like something, you dont have to watch it, you dont have to buy it, you don't have to listen to it, you dont even have to deal with it EVER. But dont tell me or anyone else that they have to stop what they are doing simply because you want to have a powertrip and tell people to live by your standards and morals. Thats totalitarianism and that my friend is NOT AMERICA. The only thing in this country as dangerous as the Socialist, commie liberals is the Hollier than Thou, Religious nutjobs. They both represent a VERY small and idiotic minority of people but have very large mouths.

So it's "idiots" like me that are crowding the jails because we want the law upheld? And it's OK with you that people are trashing America because you think us conservatives are on some sort of "totalitarian" "powertrip" to control America? And we're dangerous because of our "Holier than Thou" "religious nutjob" thinking? So, this is this the libertarian line of thinking?

Hey, genious, you're starting to sound just like a Liberal.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So it's "idiots" like me that are crowding the jails because we want the law upheld? And it's OK with you that people are trashing America because you think us conservatives are on some sort of "totalitarian" "powertrip" to control America? And we're dangerous because of our "Holier than Thou" "religious nutjob" thinking? So, this is this the libertarian line of thinking?

Hey, genious, you're starting to sound just like a Liberal.

And you're ignoring the argument just like one.

 

[Mr. P]

A convicted child molester should never be allowed to walk free in society. This is a sign of insanity, the recidivism rate of molesters is simply too high to think that we should ever allow anybody convicted of this crime out of prison.

However not allowing them to live next to a school is after the fact of conviction, it is not solely preventative but a continuation of punishment.

True. So is publishing there names in a public data base and tracking them for life.IMO.
Do we do that with murders after they serve their time? Sure they have a record, but are you informed if the guy that moves in 3 blocks away killed 2 people 30 years ago?

Odd how sex and sex crimes trump murder in this regard. Then again watch TV and listen to what people ***** about. It's not the constant violance, murders etc we see, it's the sex scenes.

 

[no1tovote4]

True. So is publishing there names in a public data base and tracking them for life.IMO.
Do we do that with murders after they serve their time? Sure they have a record, but are you informed if the guy that moves in 3 blocks away killed 2 people 30 years ago?

Odd how sex and sex crimes trump murder in this regard. Then again watch TV and listen to what people ***** about. It's not the constant violance, murders etc we see, it's the sex scenes.

I didn't say it was right, I explained how it was different than punishing somebody for the probability of a crime. I don't necessarily believe it is because it is a sex crime that it trumps most murders, as a man who victimized children is likely to get the death penalty in the murder case, in a molestation case he gets some time Parole and rules about where he lives and works. That certainly doesn't show we treat the sex offender worse than we do the murderer and in fact shows quite the opposite.

What I stated in other posts is that the molesters should never be let out and why. I do not believe that we should acknowledge the danger and simply make preventative laws and think we have done something about it, the recidivism rate is still extremely high even with those rules. These people are too damaged for us to accept them back into society and allow them to continue to victimize children.

 

[GotZoom]

I didn't say it was right, I explained how it was different than punishing somebody for the probability of a crime. I don't necessarily believe it is because it is a sex crime that it trumps most murders, as a man who victimized children is likely to get the death penalty in the murder case, in a molestation case he gets some time Parole and rules about where he lives and works. That certainly doesn't show we treat the sex offender worse than we do the murderer and in fact shows quite the opposite.

What I stated in other posts is that the molesters should never be let out and why. I do not believe that we should acknowledge the danger and simply make preventative laws and think we have done something about it, the recidivism rate is still extremely high even with those rules. These people are too damaged for us to accept them back into society and allow them to continue to victimize children.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And you're ignoring the argument just like one.

Pray tell, how?

Or was that just another one of your liberal comebacks that ignores 99% of what has already been said?

 

[Mr. P]

I didn't say it was right, I explained how it was different than punishing somebody for the probability of a crime. I don't necessarily believe it is because it is a sex crime that it trumps most murders, as a man who victimized children is likely to get the death penalty in the murder case, in a molestation case he gets some time Parole and rules about where he lives and works. That certainly doesn't show we treat the sex offender worse than we do the murderer and in fact shows quite the opposite.

What I stated in other posts is that the molesters should never be let out and why. I do not believe that we should acknowledge the danger and simply make preventative laws and think we have done something about it, the recidivism rate is still extremely high even with those rules. These people are too damaged for us to accept them back into society and allow them to continue to victimize children.

I agree with that, but like someone said already, we should be up front about a "LIFE" sentence in the first place, And then, I think prison is where they should spend it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I agree with that, but like someone said already, we should be up front about a "LIFE" sentence in the first place, And then, I think prison is where they should spend it.

That is pretty much what Jessica's Law is all about. And some wonder why Bill O'Reilly is so hated by the liberals? This is in complete opposition to their goals to sexualize children and take them from parental control.

 

[insein]

So it's "idiots" like me that are crowding the jails because we want the law upheld? And it's OK with you that people are trashing America because you think us conservatives are on some sort of "totalitarian" "powertrip" to control America? And we're dangerous because of our "Holier than Thou" "religious nutjob" thinking? So, this is this the libertarian line of thinking?

Hey, genious, you're starting to sound just like a Liberal.

Yes im a liberal now. Nevermind that my avatar says that i destroy liberals one at a time. In this case i make an exception for a totalitarian such as yourself and put you down.

Conservatism is freedom from the oppression of government. If government continues to enact laws that tell people HOW to live their lives, then this is no different then socialism, communism, totalitarianism. We do as the government tells us to do or we goto jail regardless of how ridiculous the law may be.

You go along with these laws now because they attack something that you agree should be further punished without realizing that someday they might take away something you like to do which would then make you a criminal.

They once outlawed alcohol. They believed it was a danger to society and would ruin our moral fabric. What they found was that when they outlawed alcohol, regular citizens became criminals and the real criminals still werent caught because guess what, they don't care about our laws to begin with. Its the same thing they try to do with gun laws. They make guns as illegal as they can in order to make fewer people have guns. But when regular people obey the gun laws, criminals don't and now criminals and the government are the only ones with guns.

When you say outlaw something harmless to anyone but the person that is using them like porn, drugs, tv, radio, cars, etc, then you make regular citizens who wish no harm on anyone into criminals. You force people to live by your way of life and that my friend is totalitarianism which you apparently support.

So lets review. You want more laws for regular things to increase government power, increase government revenue, decrease personal freedom all in the name of "the good of the people." Sounds like a totalitarian state to me. You my friend are NOT a conservative.

 

[Bonnie]

You're right..and when adults ask, "what is wrong with kids these days?", we need to get in their face and say "LOOK IN THE F'ING MIRROR"!

Good point!!! lol

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Pray tell, how?

Or was that just another one of your liberal comebacks that ignores 99% of what has already been said?

Because you didn't address anything he put in his post, just kind of whined that he called you some names. Up until then, your posts were at least thoughtful and detailed...

Did it make you feel better to call me a liberal? It's like therapy for you.

 

[Mr. P]

....
So lets review. You want more laws for regular things to increase government power, increase government revenue, decrease personal freedom all in the name of "the good of the people." Sounds like a totalitarian state to me. You my friend are NOT a conservative.

In this case I think we’re talking more theocracy. Which is way more scary to me.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

In this case I think we’re talking more theocracy. Which is way more scary to me.

We get to suicide bomb people, though... it's like russian roulette on a societal level.

 

[Mr. P]

We get to suicide bomb people, though... it's like russian roulette on a societal level.

IMO..It's suicide................
Christian rule/ Islaim rule..
the same thing..Not good.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yes im a liberal now. Nevermind that my avatar says that i destroy liberals one at a time. In this case i make an exception for a totalitarian such as yourself and put you down.

Conservatism is freedom from the oppression of government. If government continues to enact laws that tell people HOW to live their lives, then this is no different then socialism, communism, totalitarianism. We do as the government tells us to do or we goto jail regardless of how ridiculous the law may be.

You go along with these laws now because they attack something that you agree should be further punished without realizing that someday they might take away something you like to do which would then make you a criminal.

They once outlawed alcohol. They believed it was a danger to society and would ruin our moral fabric. What they found was that when they outlawed alcohol, regular citizens became criminals and the real criminals still werent caught because guess what, they don't care about our laws to begin with. Its the same thing they try to do with gun laws. They make guns as illegal as they can in order to make fewer people have guns. But when regular people obey the gun laws, criminals don't and now criminals and the government are the only ones with guns.

When you say outlaw something harmless to anyone but the person that is using them like porn, drugs, tv, radio, cars, etc, then you make regular citizens who wish no harm on anyone into criminals. You force people to live by your way of life and that my friend is totalitarianism which you apparently support.

So lets review. You want more laws for regular things to increase government power, increase government revenue, decrease personal freedom all in the name of "the good of the people." Sounds like a totalitarian state to me. You my friend are NOT a conservative.

My post calling your thinking liberal was only in response to your emotional post calling me all sorts of names such as a totalitarian and a religious nut - much like any garden variety liberal would do. I believe you stooped to labeling and namecalling because your arguments are so full of big holes Hurricane Katrina could blow through one of them which I think you already know but are too stubborn to admit it. Or else you have fallen for the "freedom" line of bs from the libertarians.

Conservatives fully support laws that provide an ordered and responsible society without trying to step on individual rights. As I have already pointed out, there are all sorts of laws on the books that we have for all sorts of reasons that are necessary to achieve this goal. If we didn't, we would have chaos.

Yes, conservativism is freedom from oppression from government and opposes big government in favor of more state and local government. However, unlike libertarianism, conservativism is modified by a sense of responsibility and traditional values instead of an "anything goes" approach that libertarians take. I have no problem with a community that democratically decides to allow sleeze if that is truly what they want. The problem is that these things are being shoehorned into communities under the auspices of "free speech" and for the various reasons I have already stated, not through local elections that fairly address the issue. This is where the libertarian approach is similar to the liberal approach.

I agree with you that there are some laws that may go over the top. However, this discussion has been about pornography. In post #125 I listed many of the reasons why it is so destructive to society. I also pointed out that we already have many laws on the books that make distribution of porn illegal. However, you still choose to defend porn which I find to be a ridiculous subject on which to take a "freedom" stance. However, you libertarians have been hyped up on this subject from the work of the ACLU and others.

The law does not prevent you from having porn material (other than child porn) in your own home. That is your individual freedom and as I have said, if you want to live in your own pigsty, fine. The point I have been trying to make is that we conservatives don't want to live in a public pigsty where the public venues are saturated with porn and obscenities because it destroys society as a whole. We, as citizens of a democratic government have the right to make laws to prevent this and we already have done so. We need to enforce those laws already on the books. I would like to see heavy penalties laid upon the propaganda industry that is filling the public pipelines full of filth that destroys the moral fabric of our society and which will ultimately destroy democracy.

This is the position of a solid conservative.

 

[insein]

My post calling your thinking liberal was only in response to your emotional post calling me all sorts of names such as a totalitarian and a religious nut - much like any garden variety liberal would do. I believe you stooped to labeling and namecalling because your arguments are so full of big holes Hurricane Katrina could blow through one of them which I think you already know but are too stubborn to admit it. Or else you have fallen for the "freedom" line of bs from the libertarians.

Yet you havent poked any holes into the crux of my argument. How does criminalizing porn help society? Ive read your posts from the Baptistpillar (hardly objective on the issue) and what they THINK of the matter but i have yet to hear from YOU why you think pornography is such a danger to society.

Conservatives fully support laws that provide an ordered and responsible society without trying to step on individual rights. As I have already pointed out, there are all sorts of laws on the books that we have for all sorts of reasons that are necessary to achieve this goal. If we didn't, we would have chaos.

Yes like murder, rape, child rape, theft, etc. All crimes that punish those that cause damage to society. A law should extablish a means to punish those that attack society. IT should not prevent those from committing those crimes at all. If a criminal wants to steal a car, he's not worrying about a law that says don't steal cars. So if the government enacts a law that says you can't stand near other people's cars to prevent auto theft, is that going to stop a criminal from STILL stealing a car? No but it will criminalize innocent people for standing near car's they had no intention of stealing.

Yes, conservativism is freedom from oppression from government and opposes big government in favor of more state and local government. However, unlike libertarianism, conservativism is modified by a sense of responsibility and traditional values instead of an "anything goes" approach that libertarians take.

Conservatives don't have an anything goes approach. They want tough penalties for those that committ crimes. They don't want penalties for those that we THINK are going to commit crimes. Then we get into a grey area where we criminalize people that were causing no harm but were perceived to have been wanting to. How do we now police people's intentions? Who are we God? No.

I have no problem with a community that democratically decides to allow sleeze if that is truly what they want. The problem is that these things are being shoehorned into communities under the auspices of "free speech" and for the various reasons I have already stated, not through local elections that fairly address the issue. This is where the libertarian approach is similar to the liberal approach.

You obviously do have a problem with these things because most people don't care what someone does in the privacy of their own home. Its only a minority of individuals that has a problem with the way other people are living. The only things being "shoehorned" are the moral laws that restrict the majority's will by bending it in line with their moral code. Worry about your life. Live it according to your religion and you have nothing to worry about. God will take pity on you and send the rest of the poor slobs to hell when the time comes. In the meantime, don't tread on me.

I agree with you that there are some laws that may go over the top. However, this discussion has been about pornography. In post #125 I listed many of the reasons why it is so destructive to society. I also pointed out that we already have many laws on the books that make distribution of porn illegal. However, you still choose to defend porn which I find to be a ridiculous subject on which to take a "freedom" stance. However, you libertarians have been hyped up on this subject from the work of the ACLU and others.

Perhaps you don't read so good. Where have i defended the ACLU? Where have i stated that im a libertarian? Im an American. I think for myself. I fight for what I believe is right and true in this country. I don't take marching orders unlike some people in this world. Live your own life man. Don't follow a cause because people tell you too. Follow one because you believe its right. You telling people to live to your will is not going to make people morally higher. Its going to make them into criminals because they will live their own lives the way they always did. Its just that someone says their life is now not as good as someone elses and therefore it is criminal.

The law does not prevent you from having porn material (other than child porn) in your own home. That is your individual freedom and as I have said, if you want to live in your own pigsty, fine. The point I have been trying to make is that we conservatives don't want to live in a public pigsty where the public venues are saturated with porn and obscenities because it destroys society as a whole. We, as citizens of a democratic government have the right to make laws to prevent this and we already have done so. We need to enforce those laws already on the books. I would like to see heavy penalties laid upon the propaganda industry that is filling the public pipelines full of filth that destroys the moral fabric of our society and which will ultimately destroy democracy.

Yes porn is going to destroy democracy. Not authoritarian rule. You say that the public is littered with porn. Where? I can drive down my street in Bristol (a lower to middle income neighborhood) and not notice a single display of public pornography anywhere. In fact, i can't recall in the last 12 years (my total awareness in my life that such a thing as porn even existed) where i saw a piece of pornographic material in public at all. I see strip clubs but i wouldnt know they were one if someone hadnt told me its there after driving past it 100 times. I notice adult book stores that look like boarded up shops that have gone out of business with discreet signs on the front. You wouldnt even know the place was in business unless you were a patron of the establishment. The point is that public pornography is pretty much non-existent except for an occasional drunken loon that goes streaking.

Porn in and of itself does not degrade the mind anymore than regular sexual urges do. You havent given me evidence that proves that any sexual predator used porn as a "gateway" drug to his/her behavior. Those people were already fucked up in the head and should be locked away from society so that society doesnt have to deal with them. But regular citizens going about their daily routines do not care on an average basis what people around them are doing so long as it doesnt interfere with their lives.

This is the position of a solid conservative.

Thats the position of a solid Morally Superior, Religious Totalitarian.