Registered Sex Offenders Denied Online Gaming

[Nyoibo]

You can't have a punishment *after* the punishment, else your justice system no longer has any meaning. This is the problem. There's no chance of rehabilitating anyone if you effectively condemn them for life regardless of their crimes.

And that's exactly what the sex offender registry is.

[telecom_goddess]

If you have an actual violent pedophile with a high risk to re-offend then A) Why the fuck is he out to begin with and B) If you want him offline, don't allow him Internet as part of his parole conditions.

I know someone who is a convicted sex offender (I made friends with him before I found out about his offense, so effectively he lied to me about it by omission). And he supposedly is not supposed to be online as part of his parole. However he IS online and very active, under an assumed name. (again I knew none of this when I first started talking to him).

He is an example of someone who keeps getting punished after he already served 5 years in prison for this crime. Now it's one he committed, no doubt, he made a bad decision in a split second of time and touched a female child on the chest. However I don't think he's likely to re offend and would dearly love to get his life back on track. But right now he's unable to get a job, or an apartment because of his record and he's forced to live with his parents. Now these parents won't be around forever, what's he supposed to do then?

On a personal note I am not talking to him much anymore, it's a combination of the crime committed and the fact that he straight up lied to me. Mainly I'm upset about the lying. I thought I could trust him and was always honest with him and he didn't return that.

ETA: btw he does TONS of online gaming. Under his assumed name.

[Lace Neil Singer]

and the mindset of "all sexual predators are pedophiles"

And "all pedophiles are dangerous". There are people who are technically pedophiles (for example, Joe Bloggs who is eighteen and has consentual sex with his fifteen year old girlf, or John Doe who has a sexual attraction to children and who never acts out on his impulses) who are not a danger to the public.

There are also people who are a danger to the public who are NOT on the list. The vast majority of children are abused by someone close to them, for example, a family member, friend of the family or a close neighbour. No point in protecting little Susie and Mickey from big bad Pedobear on their gaming network if it's pervy uncle Barry who's the one they need protection from.

[Slytovhand]

I made friends with him before I found out about his offense, so effectively he lied to me about it by omission

Hang on... do you actually expect anyone who has a criminal offense as lying to you if they don't mention it to you? Is there something about you that I've forgotten or don't know about, such that said person would be required to mention it?

[crashhelmet]

And "all pedophiles are dangerous". There are people who are technically pedophiles (for example, Joe Bloggs who is eighteen and has consentual sex with his fifteen year old girlf, or John Doe who has a sexual attraction to children and who never acts out on his impulses) who are not a danger to the public.

This is why a lot of states have laws set that accommodate for things like this. Age of Consent laws have been reduced to as low as 14 in some states. Some states of have an "X years difference law." If I remember right, here in Nevada the age of consent is 16 as long as the other person is no older than 3 years older.

There are also people who are a danger to the public who are NOT on the list. The vast majority of children are abused by someone close to them, for example, a family member, friend of the family or a close neighbour. No point in protecting little Susie and Mickey from big bad Pedobear on their gaming network if it's pervy uncle Barry who's the one they need protection from.

Yes, a lot of people are abused by someone close to them. It's sad, unfortunate, and disgusting. However, if the Internet wasn't such an easily available tool for pedophiles, rapists, and other criminals to use to stalk their prey, shows like "To Catch A Predator" wouldn't be as successful and Chris Hanson wouldn't have told so many people to "have a seat."

[Lace Neil Singer]

He still hasn't caught Pedobear, tho. XD

Seriously tho, check my location; age of consent in England is sixteen. However, a fifteen year old who has sex with an older man can still sting him for underage sex... tho it's normally parents who do that. Therefore, he's on the list when he's not a danger to the general public.

As for the internet being oh so dangerous, the main danger is caused by people being naive and ignorant. There are kids with Facebook pages (which, incidentally, they're not supposed to have in the first place) who put their full name, address, where they like to hang out and photos of themselves semi naked on there. The fact that their parents aren't monitoring what their kids do and what they put up for the world to see online is more of an issue than the fact that Mr Pervert of Penzance might be online.

[Gravekeeper]

However, if the Internet wasn't such an easily available tool for pedophiles, rapists, and other criminals to use to stalk their prey, shows like "To Catch A Predator" wouldn't be as successful and Chris Hanson wouldn't have told so many people to "have a seat."

Cept "To Catch A Predator" did not center on pedophiles or rapists, constantly skirted the line on legal entrapment, was aided by a volunteer group that they *paid* to find predators for them ( $100,000 an episode ) and had a number of behind the scenes problems when it came to the legal side of things. Cumilating in 23 "Predators" having their charges dropped due to lack of evidence and entrapment.

Other than that though. >.>

[crashhelmet]

Cept "To Catch A Predator" did not center on pedophiles or rapists, constantly skirted the line on legal entrapment, was aided by a volunteer group that they *paid* to find predators for them ( $100,000 an episode ) and had a number of behind the scenes problems when it came to the legal side of things. Cumilating in 23 "Predators" having their charges dropped due to lack of evidence and entrapment.

Other than that though. >.>

I was not aware of that. And here I thought it was cancelled because of his own legal issues.

[Gravekeeper]

I was not aware of that. And here I thought it was cancelled because of his own legal issues.

It was cancelled because they ran out of predators, ironically enough.

[Slytovhand]

Seriously tho, check my location; age of consent in England is sixteen. However, a fifteen year old who has sex with an older man can still sting him for underage sex... tho it's normally parents who do that. Therefore, he's on the list when he's not a danger to the general public.

Ummm, TBH, you confused me there... if AoC is 16, how does the 15 yo "sting" him for underage sex??? Instead of a straight pedophile charge?
Or, are you meaning - she's 15, the parents are attempting to 'sting' (in the sense of, coerce/extort money from) him? In which case, I'd have thought that it's A) entrapment, and b) going to land the parents in a whole heap of trouble as well.

[Canarr]

Um... because a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. You do not get charged with pedophilia for banging a 15-year-old, you get charged with the appropriate crime: statutory rape in the US, sex with minors in Germany, etc.

Seriously, do you *not* know the difference between sex with children and sex with (underage) teenagers?

[Lace Neil Singer]

I was saying that the man charged with statatory rape would be put on the sex offenders registery, ie saying that just cuz someone's on there, doesn't mean that they're a danger to the public.

Just as a pedophile who doesn't act on his/her urges wouldn't be a danger, either. Yes, they do exist. We only hear about the ones that do act on their urges... and they're not all men, either. In any case, I believe that parents are responsible for ensuring that their kids are safe online, by *gasp!* monitoring their childrens' activity on the internet and making sure that they don't put stuff like their home address and semi naked photos of themselves up.

[crashhelmet]

It all varies from state to state.

In California, age of Consent is 18. However, if there is 3 years or less difference, it's only a misdemeanor. The penalties get worse the greater the age difference is. If one is under the age of 14, regardless of the age of the other, the penalties get worse. So if a 14 year old sleeps with a 13 year old, they're at risk of a felony charge, because of how the law is written.

As I said before, Nevada is 16 but with a 3 year law. There can't be a difference greater than 3 years. 16 with a 19 year old is fine, but not a 20 year old.

Arizona is 18, but if they're less than 2 years apart it's all up to the judge/jury. It's technically illegal, but not an automatic conviction.

[Andara Bledin]

If one is under the age of 14, regardless of the age of the other, the penalties get worse. So if a 14 year old sleeps with a 13 year old, they're at risk of a felony charge, because of how the law is written.

Don't forget that with the way the laws are often written, if two 13-year-olds were to sleep together, both would be guilty of felony charges, despite both being the same age.

^-.-^

[Ginger Tea]

I was wondering that, would they charge both or just go
"Man has penis, penis bad, man bad." even if the girl instigated it.

Also as it is about sex offenders not child sex offenders, does peeing in public still land you on the register over there?