DanG 1 #276 June 3, 2014 QuoteFactory work What about the women who work there? You want them standing next to the guy all day, perhaps having incidental physical contact? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #277 June 4, 2014 QuoteRoofer? No way, there might be children in that house. And you're giving him a perfect view in the bedroom windows of all the houses on the street. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #278 June 4, 2014 I'm not trying to prevent the person from working. As I've said I just don't believe they should be TI's which many times is this sports face to the public. They're more then welcome to enjoy the sport as much as they want but do to choices THEY made they shouldn't be allowed to be a TI. Sorry if they have consequences they kinda stink this being one of them. Standing next to someone in a factory is very different then being harnessed to them.No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #279 June 4, 2014 promise5I'm not trying to prevent the person from working. As I've said I just don't believe they should be TI's which many times is this sports face to the public. They're more then welcome to enjoy the sport as much as they want but do to choices THEY made they shouldn't be allowed to be a TI. Sorry if they have consequences they kinda stink this being one of them. Standing next to someone in a factory is very different then being harnessed to them. ................................................................................. I agree with you that REPEAT sexual offenders should not work as TIs. Several levels of authority share the responsibility to screen repeat sexual offenders ad deny them work in sensitive careers. USPA should refuse to issue coach ratings to repeat sexual offenders. Tandem Examiners should refuse to train repeat sexual offenders as TIs. Manufacturers should refuse to issue TI ratings to repeat ... DZOs should refuse to hire TI with a history of repeat sexual offences. Vidiots should refuse to work with "that creep," etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #280 June 4, 2014 ... I felt it was extreme as well. People tend to cringe at the idea of castration, but chemical castration imo isn't really castration. It's basically hormone therapy and even used to treat prostate cancer. Several states already sentence some serious sexual offenders to chemical castration. Now while I don't agree with involuntary hormone therapy, I think it's a viable and reversible solution for those that want to get help...even for those that haven't been caught yet. This is too important of a topic for people to just discredit it, so perhaps we should just stop calling it castration? ................................................................................... I agree with half of what you said. However, I have no faith in chemical castration, because there is no way to GUARRANTEE that sexual offenders take all their medication on a regular basis. Fore example, the Province of British Columbia shut down most of its old-school mental institutions decades ago. The gov't was confident that they could release thousands of mental patients to the streets as long as their mental problems could be controlled with regular medication. However, the Province never adequately funded halfway houses, so there was no way to monitor if the mentally-ill continued taking their medication. The end result is thousands of homeless, drug-addicted, former mental patients wandering the streets of Vancouver. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #281 June 4, 2014 May I suggest that life-long imprisonment is a luxury of wealthy nations? In the olden days, small communities could not afford the luxury of feeding idle mouths. Minor criminals were sentenced to hard labour. Medium criminals were enslaved, while the worst criminals were executed. Hint: criminals sentenced to hard labour were often worked to death before the end of their sentences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #282 June 4, 2014 riggerrob***I'm not trying to prevent the person from working. As I've said I just don't believe they should be TI's which many times is this sports face to the public. They're more then welcome to enjoy the sport as much as they want but do to choices THEY made they shouldn't be allowed to be a TI. Sorry if they have consequences they kinda stink this being one of them. Standing next to someone in a factory is very different then being harnessed to them. ................................................................................. I agree with you that REPEAT sexual offenders should not work as TIs. Several levels of authority share the responsibility to screen repeat sexual offenders ad deny them work in sensitive careers. USPA should refuse to issue coach ratings to repeat sexual offenders. Tandem Examiners should refuse to train repeat sexual offenders as TIs. Manufacturers should refuse to issue TI ratings to repeat ... DZOs should refuse to hire TI with a history of repeat sexual offences. Vidiots should refuse to work with "that creep," etc. How would you define repeat? A guy that rapes more then one woman? A child molester that molests more the one child or molests the same child repeatedly ?No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #284 June 4, 2014 promise5******I'm not trying to prevent the person from working. As I've said I just don't believe they should be TI's which many times is this sports face to the public. They're more then welcome to enjoy the sport as much as they want but do to choices THEY made they shouldn't be allowed to be a TI. Sorry if they have consequences they kinda stink this being one of them. Standing next to someone in a factory is very different then being harnessed to them. ................................................................................. I agree with you that REPEAT sexual offenders should not work as TIs. Several levels of authority share the responsibility to screen repeat sexual offenders ad deny them work in sensitive careers. USPA should refuse to issue coach ratings to repeat sexual offenders. Tandem Examiners should refuse to train repeat sexual offenders as TIs. Manufacturers should refuse to issue TI ratings to repeat ... DZOs should refuse to hire TI with a history of repeat sexual offences. Vidiots should refuse to work with "that creep," etc. How would you define repeat? A guy that rapes more then one woman? A child molester that molests more the one child or molests the same child repeatedly ? .................................................................................. Yes! Any more than one sexual offence means that the whack job is a "repeat sexual assaulter." The number of victims is irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #285 June 4, 2014 Some wouldn't see it that way. They would see it as any and all offenses prior to getting caught would be lumped together. Then if convicted and once they served their time or whatever they had to do and were released if they then committed it again then that would be seen as a second offense.No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #286 June 4, 2014 "They would see it as any and all offenses prior to getting caught would be lumped together." You and Kallend need to get this magical future evil display device on the market soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #287 June 4, 2014 promise5Some wouldn't see it that way. They would see it as any and all offenses prior to getting caught would be lumped together. Then if convicted and once they served their time or whatever they had to do and were released if they then committed it again then that would be seen as a second offense. ........................................................................................ I disagree with your logic. The primary goal of the criminal justice system is to protect victims ... ideally deter criminals from committing their first crime. In lieu of prevention, the criminal justice system should change the attitudes of criminals the first and only time they go to prison. If that fails, then repeat offenders should be isolated from their victims. If that means life behind bars, so be it, because the first time they dis-respected a victim, they destroyed the victim's freedom. In compensation, criminals lose some of their freedoms. In blunt terms, that means that any "goof" who rapes a child will be repeatedly raped in prison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #288 June 4, 2014 normissYou and Kallend need to get this magical future evil display device on the market soon. 1) Be nice. 2) The truly dangerous sex offenders, the rapists and child molesters, are different from people who streaked or peed in public in that they almost certainly didn't commit the crime for which they were caught either the first time nor on a whim. In all probability, they have had psychological issues for years before they acted out on them and due to the nature of the crime, they might not have gotten reported or caught the first time they committed them either. It is a logical assumption that the truly dangerous sex offenders don't really need to show up with more than one conviction to be assumed to have committed more; they just haven't been caught at those.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #289 June 4, 2014 Sorry if I missed it somewhere in the thread, but does anyone have a good example of someone who was required to register as a sex offender after one instance of streaking or public urination? I've done a brief web search, and I get the idea that it might happen, but I haven't come across an actual example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #290 June 4, 2014 http://www.hrw.org/node/115179quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #291 June 4, 2014 QuoteIt is a logical assumption that the truly dangerous sex offenders don't really need to show up with more than one conviction to be assumed to have committed more; they just haven't been caught at those. But how do you tell the truly dangerous apart? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #292 June 4, 2014 DanGQuoteIt is a logical assumption that the truly dangerous sex offenders don't really need to show up with more than one conviction to be assumed to have committed more; they just haven't been caught at those. But how do you tell the truly dangerous apart? I think step one would be better legal definitions of what is a sexual offender. Rapists and molesters in one category and separate from streakers and public urinators.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #293 June 4, 2014 I'll give my opinion: 1)Anything involving a child 2)Rape/assault Yes I know that would include someone streaking and a kid seeing them. Yes and the 18 yr old sleeping with his 16 yr old girlfriend. It would also include the cases of assault and rape. Or the case of a child molester molesting a child and then being able to plea down to corrupting the morals of a child. (Yes,real case I heard of) It stinks I know but to go back to what I asked, they then wouldn't be allowed to be TI's.No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #294 June 4, 2014 quadehttp://www.hrw.org/node/115179 Is there an example somewhere in this link that has to do with a person being required to register for streaking or public urination? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #295 June 4, 2014 >It stinks I know but to go back to what I asked, they then wouldn't be allowed to be TI's. You keep saying "yes this stinks but it's OK to do something that stinks." I'd prefer to fix the things that stink and/or not do the things that stink. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #296 June 4, 2014 I think the article lists something like 230(?)ish -children- that ended up on the list for silly things and as far as they could tell would remain on the list forever -- because they did silly things as kids.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #297 June 4, 2014 quadeI think the article lists something like 230(?)ish -children- that ended up on the list for silly things and as far as they could tell would remain on the list forever -- because they did silly things as kids. The stuff I read on there sounded like actual sexual assault, even if it was done by one kid to another kid, but that's not a discussion I want to get into. I am specifically looking for an example of someone who has been required to register as a sex offender because he/she went streaking or urinated in public one time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #298 June 4, 2014 promise5I'll give my opinion: 1)Anything involving a child 2)Rape/assault Yes I know that would include someone streaking and a kid seeing them. Yes and the 18 yr old sleeping with his 16 yr old girlfriend. That is currently legal in many states (including mine and yours): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws Note references to "close-in-age"."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #299 June 4, 2014 I agree things need to be fixed but I don't agree with doing nothing until it all can be fixed. One step is not allowing a registered sex offender to be certified. Another huge step is redefining the definition of sex offender and who should be put on a national registry.No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #300 June 4, 2014 >I agree things need to be fixed but I don't agree with doing nothing >until it all can be fixed. Definitely. And if you said "do not allow rapists or child abusers to be certified" I'd be right there with you. >One step is not allowing a registered sex offender to be certified. Better step is not allowing convicted rapists or child abusers to be certified, and allowing people who streaked or urinated in public to be certified. That better accomplishes the goal. >Another huge step is redefining the definition of sex offender and who should >be put on a national registry. That would be a great idea as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
