Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.daionet.gr.jp!news.yamada.gr.jp!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Eric Takabayashi Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: I'm Usama bin Laden, and I approved this message Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:54:38 +0900 Lines: 160 Message-ID: <4194C09F.96226FEB@yahoo.co.jp> References: <0oo9o0t7ot2addmdj99bo3u3t6rpqqsuqg@4ax.com> <4188F0CA.C62DA8F3@yahoo.co.jp> <4188FABF.4CAAB363@yahoo.co.jp> <418905D7.4F8F0559@yahoo.co.jp> <418A3181.998B4FED@yahoo.co.jp> <2v04noF2h2lumU4@uni-berlin.de> <418B8166.9177D36B@yahoo.co.jp> <418B93D6.973D3EB9@yahoo.co.jp> <418C34C4.EBF16D5C@yahoo.co.jp> <418CD05E.9D978D80@yahoo.co.jp> <418F7F84.4029F7A1@yahoo.co.jp> <4190B04D.93F246F8@yahoo.co.jp> <4Kukd.4789$7i4.2884@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <4193C2EC.9DDC5F43@yahoo.co.jp> Reply-To: etakajp@yahoo.co.jp Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de m5PeH9Gh3hXpzgu/bR6YjwEl2VCFfL345raN4KGjwB+7o4VlKZ X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: ja,en Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:21791 Rykk wrote: > > People featured on national, maybe even international news as in > sensational cases are rather beyond being helped by normal channels. Even a > common office supply thief no one would normally pay attention to, who was > famously sentenced to walk up and down the street with a sandwich board and > shown on TV, escaped to the UK. > > exactly. He moved. Why should this be necessary? He's a petty thief of office supplies, a common enough crime, who for some reason got arrested and punished. Why should he feel it necessary to escape the country in which he lived? He's either got some serious personal problems, or some people made it real hard for him to stay. > > What do people have a right to know about people's pasts? > > People have a right to look up anything. Oh. > I don't think people have the right to compile your past and advertise it to > someone else, this is a violation of privacy. How about http://www.thesmokinggun.com/ which seems to specialize in sensational cases or celebrity offenses? > If you want to know if I'm a sex offender, then you should look up my name in > the databases and court rulings yourself. You shoudln't be able to just ask > someone and have him give you the answer Does this mean you are against people or organizations which offer such information for free, such as a sex offender website, or offer to look up anyone for a fee? > or distribute fliers with my face all over my neighborhood. Well, that can be a crime in itself. > People shouldn't be released if they have a "continuing mental condition" It happens. It happened a lot under the Reagan Administration due to budget cuts. Not that I believe that people with conditions worthy of being institutionalized are very dangerous to those other than themselves. > as for opportunity, even if you distribute fliers all over the neighborhood > with thier face, they simply need to walk to another one. Which is why in places as in Hawaii, by law a sex offender entering the state must register, for life. Those who enter the state and do not register in person within THREE WORKING DAYS, face a penalty for the simple act of not registering. http://tinyurl.com/6x2uk The penalty for failing to register can be up to five years in jail, or a fine of up to $10,000. http://tinyurl.com/4gdxp > So you cannot remove the opportunity. You can only remove the incentive. > Now if they do repeat, then I castration should elimiate a 3rd occurance. Does physical or chemical castration prevent crimes such as sex crimes? Even a woman is capable of sex crimes, though relatively few. What do you think of more severe prison terms for repeat offenses, along the lines of three strikes you're out (life in prison)? > >>>> So no, I think a convict that has done thier time should be allowed to > keep thier past a secret so long as they abide by the law. > >>> > >>> Oh, so there should not be sex offender registries. Is it ok for your > neighbors to be convicted sex offenders without your knowledge? Can your kids > sleep over with their kids? > >> > >> Ignorance is bliss. > > > > Oh, so you do not mind if the people who mind your children are > > convicted sex offenders, as long as you do not know about it. > > > > Right > > If I don't know, I am unable to care. Thus, Ignorance is bliss. What if you later find out in the news that the criminal (whatever kind) who victimized someone you knew, had a prior record? First thing I'd wonder is why they were out, why they weren't better, or why people weren't warned. > >> And giving trust is the best way to earn it. > > > > Is that a good idea with a convicted sex offender? Entrust them with your > children, and they will reward your trust? > > I believe in forgiveness and redemption. Even as a non-christian. When > someone is released they are forgiven. Thier slate is whiped clean and they > are starting over. I'll go with that, AFTER the proper treatment, and progress shown. The convicted themselves will tell you for example that the root of their problem, say substance dependency which led to possession or theft offenses, has most likely not been addressed while imprisoned. They are still at risk. Sex offenders need treatment, as well. > Theoretically, people are paroled because the were judged to have realized > thier error and seek redemption and return to society. However, often the > goverment releases people early without doing proper quality control. The > priority shifts from freeing those who didn't require full punishment to > freeing people to free up space. When this happens it is the "Goverment" > that failed, not the convict. Which is why the government needs to switch the priority from simple drug users to drug dealers, and from simple punishment to drug treatment, one way to prevent a lot of crime and free up prison space for more dangerous criminals. > >> So long as the penalty was sufficiently harsh, there shouldn't be any more > risk from a convicted sex offender than from your friendly catholic priest. > >> > >> Your point is moot. > > > > Your point a while back about verifiable facts is moot, if you do nothing > to know them, or claim that facts such as prior convictions, should not be > known. > > There is a difference between common knowledge and goverment knowlege. It is > not my job to know whether or not everyone in my neighborhood is a sex > offender or not. o long as they are not a repeat offender. I don't care. > Repeat offenders are a different story. Do repeat offenses warrant warning the community in which they live upon release? > > Do you claim the same level of risk from a convicted sex offender as from > the average Catholic priest? > > No, but this isn't about level of risk. I would not be concerned entrusting my children with the average Catholic priest, unless there were serious allegations against him. > > And why should Catholic priests not be investigated for sex offenses if > they want to be in sensitive posts such as youth ministry? > > I think someone who tries to become a priest should be investigated for being > a good catholic. But christianity believes in redemption and forgiveness. > So you will find a few hard core drug addict priest etc.. out there. Recovering drug addict, I presume. I don't care if reformed criminals take on sensitive positions. A would be priest need not be investigated (privately) for such as sex offenses or theft? Are such matters not relevant to the job? -- "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"