Special License Plates for Sex Offenders

  • Thread starter Silverzone
  • 62 comments
  • 3,090 views
Danoff
Scary huh? It's my understanding that even if you ask to see some ID, and she shows you a fake one that says she's 21, if you believe the fake ID and have sex with her you're still on the hook as a child molester/rapist/evil predator etc. etc.

The problem is that the term sex-offender is too broad. It covers acts like streaking. Even the term child-molester can be misused to refer to an 18 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend (or maybe 17 and 16 depending on what the laws are). What we really need is a way to distinguish violent rapists from people accused of rape because the girl was drunk and is now ashamed. We need to distinguish people that are trying to abuse 12 year olds from high school sweethearts with a few months age difference.

...and then once we, in ortherwords the judge, has made that distinction, the serious ones stay in jail while the rest of them get a slap on the wrist.

No license plates necessary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is a bit scary.. and the guy going out with her now is over 18. He knows her true age, too.

This is a hard topic to deal with because an age of consent is hard to come up with. In medieval civilizations I believe it was common to be given away in marriage at 13 and 14, and our modern western civilization has set 18 as the standard. Personally I think if a 16 year old wants to have sex, the government shouldn't stop them on that. 15 year old, debateable.

And I agree... sex crimes are really not classified well when streaking in public, which is usually a harmless drunken act that in my view should be punishable by a few nights in jail, can be treated like actual rape...
 
EXelero
Would they have to wear the number plates round their necks when not in their cars to cover that also? how crazy?

i personally dont think that child sex offenses are something that can be rehabilitated. if theres something that excites you like that, it always will. and those n*bs should be locked away from civilisation.
but i agree with others who point out that the title sex offender is used to freely. a friend of mine was caught peeing in the street and put on the list!
crimes against the people should be taken more seriously and we have a right to be safe in our lives. our children even more so!
Click to expand...

So I guess that makes him a peevert then? ;)
 
Danoff
I agree with your post, but what gives chidren more of a right to be safe?
Click to expand...

because they are the innocents.
do you think a child can protect itself as well as an adult?
because as adults we control everything that affects children: where they go, what they see, what they believe to be 'the norm'. after a certain age, adults decide who they want to associate with and can have more control over their own safety. children rely on us for everything to give them the opportunity to become well rounded individuals. if this wasnt so, we wouldnt have the need for 'minimum age' on anything would we?

@Sureshot... :D
 
Dan - I think he means that children and adults all have the right to be safe from one another, but children have the right to more protection.
 
[FONT="Comic Sans MS]AS a former prison nurse, (I'd sill work there if I had the time for "extra" hours), I was informed that an inmate can become a "sex offender" for masturbating, and getting caught at it.

While I have a very special place in the darkest, deadliest part of my heart for rapists, child abusers, and those that take advantage of the elderly. In most places it is a simple matter to go online and check the sex offenders registry.
I believe that that is sufficient, as many homes have computers/internet in this day and age.
Do we need to "out" jack-offs, and those that have had an "indescretion" with a person that willing participated, that was just under the age of consent?
I believe that most decent fathers would "deal" with the lotharios that take advantage of their 14-15 year old daughters.
They would probably rather go to prison where they would be safer.


Mods, please pardon my "french" as I usually don't go as far as I have today.[/font]
 
Gil
[FONT="Comic Sans MS]In most places it is a simple matter to go online and check the sex offenders registry.
I believe that that is sufficient, as many homes have computers/internet in this day and age.
Do we need to "out" jack-offs, and those that have had an "indescretion" with a person that willing participated, that was just under the age of consent?
Click to expand...
My only problem with the registry (at least here in Kentucky) is that too many crimes get lumped under three vague terms. I went through it and I found a few public cases wherethe legal terms used for molestation were basically the same as a an age of consent case where the guy had his birthday and was suddenly illegal to sleep with his girlfriend.

The registry should be more detailed. If I find out a guy in my neighborhood decided to pee while he was stepping outside the bar to smoke, in order to obey the law, I would rather know that than assume he was exposing himself to kids at the bus stop.
 
I'm in 100% agreement with Danoff and everyone else who's raised similar points, this is one of thoes terrible laws that should be locked in a box of terrible laws and never be put into play. Yes there are serious sex offenders who go to prison, come out and then go on to do something serious again. But should that mean that all the 17 year olds that slept with their 15 year old girlfriends, all the guys that took a piss in public because there was no public oilets nearby and all of the guys that were shown fake ID by a girl in a nightclub who may have even looked older should have thier lives put at risk because of the few who are really bad who re-offend.
 
Swift
Being offenses directly against other people right? Just want to clarify on that statement. :)
Click to expand...

Worse than that. Because you could argue that streaking was directed at the 10 year old in the crowd, or that the guy who becomes legal directly offended his girlfriend who is two months younger than he is. Or that the girl who lied about her age was directly harmed.

I'd basically make it about cases of rape, or severe child molestation (less than 15 years old or something). But then again, I don't think I'd be in favor of the database at all. Because if these people are threats to society, they should be in jail.
 
Danoff
But then again, I don't think I'd be in favor of the database at all. Because if these people are threats to society, they should be in jail.
Click to expand...

My point exactly! But I guess that's for a different thread. :)
 
The sex offender registry comes into play when one shows themselves to be "rehabilitated", and is then released back into society.
Mary Kay Letourneau is a case in point.
She is likely a registered sex-offender.
She is now married to the boy she slept with. Who, btw, was more than willing to "lay some pipe" with his teacher.
Extremely high "ick" factor.
But, is she dangerous to other kids? Perhaps, perhaps not.
I'd not give her another job as a teacher.
But, should she be outed with a "special" license plate?
Remember, many many prisons in the US are overcrowded. The powers that be, are looking for reasons/excuses to let those inmates considered "not dangerous" out, to make room for the dangerous criminals.
A "benign" little statutory rape seems rather innocuous, when put up next to forcible rape w/a side of murder.

Let's first state that I don't condone either thing.
I don't understand why "grown" men, want to sleep with 14 year-old girls.
"I didn't know she was 14" is kind of a lame excuse.
I sorta understand that girls mature faster than boys, and often 16 or 17 year old girls have boyfriends of college age. And occasionally sex happens, hopefully with consent voiced or otherwise understood by both parties...
But for those of your working the pick-up/"I really don't wanna know your last name" hook-up...keep reading.
Guys, here's a rule of thumb: If your lame-ass pick-up line(s) (that got your face slapped the other night) start to work, the girl is either too drunk or too young to be taking to some hot-sheet hotel/bathroom stall/your dorm room for some "bumping of uglies".
 
Gil

I sorta understand that girls mature faster than boys, and often 16 or 17 year old girls have boyfriends of college age. And occasionally sex happens, hopefully with consent voiced or otherwise understood by both parties...
Click to expand...

Of course underage girls can't give consent.
 
Gil

Guys, here's a rule of thumb: If your lame-ass pick-up line(s) (that got your face slapped the other night) start to work, the girl is either too drunk or too young to be taking to some hot-sheet hotel/bathroom stall/your dorm room for some "bumping of uglies".
Click to expand...
So, are you saying that going from girl to girl at a bar just asking for sex until the 112th girl says yes, instead of slapping you, is a bad plan?
 
and adults are guilty?
Click to expand...

your taking my comment in its most extreme terminology


Minimum age requirements remove children't rights because they cannot handle the responsibility.
Click to expand...

its that very comment that makes them innocents! Neither can they handle the emotion of any kind of relationship, especially physical. therefor they need greater care. you dont think they deserve protection to save their innocence for as long as possible? should we subject them to all things seedy in this world?
(just taking things to the oppisite extreme.)
 
I think danoff's query was why it isn't okay to put children at risk from paedophiles, but it IS okay to put adults at risk from murderers.

Green nonce plates alert kids to the presence of a paedophile (who has been convicted of a crime and is now allowed to live with people again) - what alerts lone women to convicted rapists? What alerts off-licences and garages to convicted armed robbers? Nothing - so why is it that the rest of us don't deserve protecting?
 
Famine
I think danoff's query was why it isn't okay to put children at risk from paedophiles, but it IS okay to put adults at risk from murderers.

Green nonce plates alert kids to the presence of a paedophile (who has been convicted of a crime and is now allowed to live with people again) - what alerts lone women to convicted rapists? What alerts off-licences and garages to convicted armed robbers? Nothing - so why is it that the rest of us don't deserve protecting?
Click to expand...


if it was up to me, all of the above mentioned would have [expletive deleted by moderator] tattooed on their fore heads! I did say that everyone had the right to be secure, but just think children deserve a greater protection.
 
Famine
I think danoff's query was why it isn't okay to put children at risk from paedophiles, but it IS okay to put adults at risk from murderers.

Green nonce plates alert kids to the presence of a paedophile (who has been convicted of a crime and is now allowed to live with people again) - what alerts lone women to convicted rapists? What alerts off-licences and garages to convicted armed robbers? Nothing - so why is it that the rest of us don't deserve protecting?
Click to expand...

[FONT="Comic Sans MS]It's not that the rest of us don't deserve protecting.
I just don't believe that (after paying one's "debt to society") Ex-cons should be put in a situation where they are very likely to be attacked by otherwise calm "normal" people.
We protect ourselves by staying in "condition yellow" when we are away from home. That is, aware of our surroundings and anything that seems out of place. Because, the police, as good as they are, can't be there all the time.
When on "hostile" ground we need to be in "condition red." Not only aware of our surroundings, but anyone or anything that might jeopardize our health and well-being. As well as aware of anything in the vicinity that may be employed as a weapon if neccessary.
I do believe in the offender registry.
I think rape victims, and parents of young children should be able to easily find out if there is such a person in the area. This so, they know what this person/persons look like, and so they can avoid them, or so they know who they have to defend themselves against, if the time comes.
I also believe that almost all true sex-offenders should be locked up forever. They have an extremely high rate of recidivism.
I also believe in trained, armed citizenry.
Not everyone has to, or should go armed. But knowing that there is likely someone nearby that is, keeps folks minding their "P's" and "Q's".[/FONT]
 
Gil
It's not that the rest of us don't deserve protecting.
I just don't believe that (after paying one's "debt to society") Ex-cons should be put in a situation where they are very likely to be attacked by otherwise calm "normal" people.
Click to expand...

Quite - and I wasn't arguing that. I was merely pointing out the finer part of danoff's point (that the notion that children deserve protection because they are children and adults do not because they are not is a flawed one - so the whole idea of tagging only sex-offenders' cars is flawed).


If someone is still a serious enough risk to ANY member of the public to warrant this scheme, they should not be mixing with the public at all.
 
Famine

If someone is still a serious enough risk to ANY member of the public to warrant this scheme, they should not be mixing with the public at all.
Click to expand...

Quite right... and if they aren't serious enough to warrant the scheme, they aren't serious enough to warrant the scheme. Either way, no scheme.

(just thought I'd point out the obvious)
 
ledhed
OMG !!! A liberal just took a stroke.
Click to expand...
Are you calling me a "liberal"? Because that just ain't the way it is.:)
I'm more of an anomaly, and cannot be easily catagorized.
As for "trained, armed citizens". I believe in the second amendment very strongly.
However, I believe that everyone that buys a gun for daily carry, for the purpose of self-protection, should be required to go to someplace like "Thunder Ranch" or one of the many other schools that teach self-defense with a fire arm, STARTING with what the armed citizen may and may not do according to the law.
Criminals will always be able to get guns. They are after all criminals, and they don't care if they have to break the law to get a weapon.
I don't care what the "anti-gunners" tell you, you are much more likely to be able to get to your home defense gun, before the police can come to your rescue. But this is a rant for another time.
Sorry for the "highjackage"
 
of course, I don't have nearly enough faith in the judicial system to say that everyone convicted of any kind of crime should be permenantly marked in any way, whether it's a simple license plate or a notification of a neighborhood.

And why is a sex criminal subject to these ideas but not murderers? surely it's worse to kill someone than force sexual actions on them?
 
kennythebomb
Death = permanent
Rape = one action that only affects you mentally for the rest of your life unless you have a baby.
Click to expand...
Death = Permanent
Rape = One action that haunts, torments and scars you for the rest of your life, assuming it doesn't drive you to suicide. See what I mean?
 

Similar threads

Eunos_Cosmo
Best US License Plate
Replies
0
Views
1K
Eunos_Cosmo
Eunos_Cosmo
A
Tips for Master License A-4? 6th gear?
Replies
8
Views
3K
ZEE
ZEE
GTPNewsWire
California is Trying Out Digital License Plates, For Some Reason
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
RocZX
RocZX
Pupik
Kentucky and Speed Limits
Replies
3
Views
816
Pupik
Pupik
mrmatt racing
license for youtube
Replies
12
Views
1K
Meythia
Meythia

Latest Posts

Back