I don't want these guys ringing more door! I think you can see why in the article.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Yep. That Democratic party is so lovely.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yeah, let's make sure felons are never allowed to do anything productive for society for the rest of their lives!
-Bok
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Do you believe a sex offender can be re-habilitated, short of making him (if it's a him) a eunoch?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
There are productive things that ex-felons can do that don't involve going door-to-door.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yes.
We generally only try and punish actions, and we are bound by our Constitution to avoid cruel and unusual punishments for any crime (even sexual crimes). I think that prohibiting folks who haven't relapsed in years from participating in society only hurts the felons and the society. I also think that released felons should regain the right to vote; I'm crazy like that.
To think that no one can ever be rehabilitated is to assume that people can only make BAD destructive decisions, never good (re)constructive ones, which is not what I would think you actually thought michael. In any event, that's not the worldview I choose to take part in. But I'm generally a rehabilitation kind of a guy, for what its worth.
Would I feel a bit uncomfortable if one of these people came to my door? Sure... But that's MY problem, not theirs.
-Bok
[ June 24, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:Do you believe a sex offender can be re-habilitated, short of making him (if it's a him) a eunoch?
After two strikes, no. I would love to see stronger laws where these individuals are concerned. Much stronger!
I need to research eunochs, because I'm not at all sure that desire is removed completely once their, um, procedure is completed.
Did that make sense?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Tammy, you seem to be open minded on this -- good. Castration has been upheld as consitutional as has sterilization in many US courts including the Supreme Court. With so many sickos out there I would grant a convicted child molester or rapist of adults the right to undergo castration to reduce their sentence. Don't know wht to do about female perpetrators though except long, harsh prison sentences.
But back to the topic,
Bokonon, would you want a convicted felon knocking at your door? The Constitution does not grant convicts full rights even after they have served a sentence.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Jon Boy, I believe innocent until proven guilty, statistics be damned, in this regard. I think some screening is fair from the employers POV, but if we presume that they are guilty for some future crime (which is what you are essentially saying when you categorically deny them from a type of job), I think that speaks poorly of us.
And yes, that means I open myself up to possibly being assaulted or worse by one of these types some day. All I can say is that I will do my best to try and continue believe as I do now if that circumstance arose (a weak consolation to be sure).
-Bok
[ June 24, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
michael, read my post, I said I WOULD be uncomfortable... But that is my problem, it's not like the felon has actually committed a crime against me and my own at that point, right?
-Bok
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
To any Christian against this: You are not a Christian.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Democrats seek to employ ex-felons while Jeb Bush tries to purge them from voter lists. Hmmm... Seems democrats going after untapped market?
I agree with Bok, if people have paid for their crime, their slate should technically be clean. You probably deal at some point in your life with felons without knowing it. This group just happens to be tapping into a group of people who have a hard time getting back on their feet because of such prejudice. Which is funny...don't give ex-felons jobs, don't let them in our neighborhood, don't let them do something constructive but go all ape when they are forced back into the only road left to them. Nice.
And there are sex offenders and there SEX OFFENDERS. The article mentioned people who were convicted of sex offenses...which covers more than raping little children. A 19 year old who sleeps with his 17 year old girlfriend is committing a sex crime. I don't want to down play sex crimes, but know the facts. The site clearly says that they really are looking for good candidates for the job, not just throwing the worst of the worst out there.
Sheesh.
fil
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
If a Christian's duty is to protect his or her family then...
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
What level of sex offenders are we talking about here? Are we talking about "forcibly raped a toddler" kinds of sex offenses, or are we talking about "officer, she swore she was 18" kinds?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
But in case you're confused, you may want to check your owner's manual. There's nothing worse than thinking you're a Christian when you ain't.
(edit: this flippant remark was created specifically for Archer)
[ June 24, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Archer,
against *what* exactly?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
michael, what has the felon done to you at the point that they walk up and ask you to register to vote? What are you protecting your family against?
-Bok
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Why are pictures of sex offenders distributed to personnel at public schools? The answer is that if you see them near the school you are to call the police -- even after they have served thier time.
When I was a kid I had a couple of dogs that killed some chickens in the neighborhood. We had to put them to sleep because once a dog does such a thing they will seek to do it again.
If the local supermarket wants to hire a convicted felon to work with their money, so be it --it's their money at risk. But why hire such people to go door to door -- I don't want them at my doorstep.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm torn on this one. If you hire a felon, you're responsible for what he does while he's working for you. I'm not sure which types they hire, but hiring a sex offender to go door to door where children are likely present is riskier than I'd want to be. On the other hand, if felons can't get jobs they're going to have to commit crimes again.
And to call someone not a Christian because they're worried about their family is over the top.
Dagonee
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:that means I open myself up to possibly being assaulted or worse by one of these types some day
Personally, It's more my children I worry about.
Something happens to me...okay..I deal with it. Something happens to one of my innocents...it's on.
edited to add
quote: And to call someone not a Christian because they're worried about their family is over the top.
Agreed!
[ June 24, 2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Tammy ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Not really. You read the book, you follow the teachings, that makes you a Christian. If you don't follow the teachings, you are no more than a cafeteria Christian. You think you get to pick and choose which teachings to follow?
That said, I find it amusing that "conservatives" are so concerned about this. They'll give out there name, address and credit card number to a felon in jail but are concerned about felons that aren't even on probation?
I don't want anyone at my door. If I don't know you, I won't answer the door. So there.
[edit: the first paragraph was in response to Dag's comments.]
[ June 24, 2004, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm looking for the place in the Bible where it says felons should be given jobs that introduce them to lots of potential victims (esp. the sex offenders).
There's a difference between saying, "Felons shouldn't be given jobs" and saying, "Felons should be given jobs that take their violent past into account, if any."
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:Why are pictures of sex offenders distributed to personnel at public schools? The answer is that if you see them near the school you are to call the police -- even after they have served thier time.
All sex offenders? Get your information straight. There is a limited list of crimes involving sexuality that require reporting, many do not. My assumption is ACT wouldn't be stupid enough to send out known repeat offenders who can't be near children.
The dog story is very telling. Did Jesus tell a similar parable on the mount? The one about putting dogs down? It is ideas like this that makes me happy that a jury is composed of 12 members. MOST people can't think this way, can they?
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:I'm looking for the place in the Bible where it says felons should be given jobs that introduce them to lots of potential victims (esp. the sex offenders).
It is right under the area where Jesus said people can't have abortions or gays can't marry. That section.
quote: There's a difference between saying, "Felons shouldn't be given jobs" and saying, "Felons should be given jobs that take their violent past into account, if any."
Agreed...so, if their crimes involved going door to door and hurting people, that may not be the best job for them. If they are people who by law can't be around children or places where children gather, they shouldn't be there. If they robbed a 7-11, does that count? I mean, all these crimes are against humanity...are you saying they can have jobs, as long as they don't interact with humanity? Hmmmm...
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:I don't want anyone at my door. If I don't know you, I won't answer the door. So there.
Amen. The ultimate freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Simply and well put.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fil, that's why I was inconclusive in my first post in this thread.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
So, michaele (and Jon Boy if you desire), just to satisfy my curiosity... if a felon reforms and joins the LDS church, should he not be allowed to go on a mission? Or should he serve on a mission without going door to door? Does the LDS church have a policy regarding this?
While this is intended partly to be devil's-advocate-ish, it's not intended to be snarky. I'm honestly curious.
--Pop
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Papa Moose, good question. I think there are several situations where an individual is barred from serving a mission despite repentance. I don't know much about it though.
I don't know enough about this situation to know how I feel about it. If the people going door to door have commited minor crimes, I would be a lot more comfortable than if they had done sick, terrible, monstrous things. I'm not sure what I think about it.
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
Let's all turn our minds back to 1988 and the Dukakis versus Bush election. In the month of August, Dukakis lead in the polls by 17 points. Then, everything hit the papers about his pardoning a black man (the name was Horton, to the best of my recollection) who went on to commit some heinous crime (I don't remember exactly what). The republicans used this as a message and a mantra to swing public opinion so much that Bush won in a landslide a few months later,
Will younger Bush use this story to accomplish the same thing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Did Kerrey let this man out of jail?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I am sure Jeb is trying to figure out how to discount ACT registrations as we speak...he took away nearly 2 million votes (not all felons) with one fell swoop...maybe he can remove those registered by felons!
fil
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And to call someone not a Christian because they're worried about their family is over the top.
It's not so much the worrying about family as much as christianity and the doctrine of forgiveness and redemption. Then again, I'm one of those non-Christians who believe that ex-felons should be treated with dignity, which includes the right to vote. Not to mention, it's just a whole heck of a lot easier for some people to be charged with a felony than it is for others.
[ June 25, 2004, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
quote:I'm looking for the place in the Bible where it says felons should be given jobs that introduce them to lots of potential victims (esp. the sex offenders).
Mathew 18:12-13 21-35 Luke 6:27-38, 10:30-37 (this has more to do with not considering a group's history in wether or not they'd help others), 11:4 5-13
There are plenty of other places, but it'd take too long to find them all... But you get the idea. A Christian, by definition, is a follower of the teachings of Christ. He tells us to forgive everyone who asks to be forgiven, and even those who don't. There's no saying that's up to translation.
So I say again: If you don't want to give people a second chance when they ask for it, you're not a Christian (In fact, you're supposed to give them 70).
[ June 25, 2004, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: ArCHeR ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am a firm believer that you can forgive someone whole heartedly but that you are not required to place in that person all your trust. I think this is not in conflict with Christianity.
If my husband had an affair, I might forgive him, but it may take a great deal more for him to earn my trust once more.
[ June 25, 2004, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't like people telling other people if they are Christian or not. Since we are talking about judgement and justice, isn't it up to Christ to decide who is or is not Christian? I mean, if we are going to be pointing fingers, shouldn't it go both ways? If you have a right to decide who is and isn't a Christian, shouldn't everyone have that right -- or no one at all?
As for me, its not about forgiveness (they should be given a second chance). Its about trust and opening a person to comitting a crime again that they wouldn't if not placed in that situation. Part of repentance is to not put yourself in the kinds of situations (wallow in your dung and make things even worse), if you can help it, that will make you fall again. Proper supervision I am fine with -- but, it doesn't sound like such supervisions are in place for this group. Sure, some of them might be fully recovered. However, it sounds like proper screaning has not been enforced for the protection of society. We should be harmless as doves, but wise as serpents.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, I don't know who ACT is. I don't trust them to decide for me who is safe to be standing on my doorstep and who isn't.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...so where's the outrage, exactly?
An organization's set up to help ex-cons find work again and thus avoid the famous revolving-door pattern. Kerry needs door-to-door registrars -- and he goes ahead and gives the contract to the organization. Never mind that unemployment is one of the most common reasons why ex-cons commit crimes again.
Gotta love this example of unbiased media, by the way. In the first paragraph:
quote:JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- A Democratic group crucial to John Kerry's presidential campaign has paid felons -- some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary -- to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states.
I'd hoped the AP was above this.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Exactly where is the "false advertising" in that blurb?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
False advertising?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Lalo, are you upset because it sounds bad?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
You honestly don't see the bias in this report?
If you want to run a story on the merits of having ex-cons go door-to-door, fine -- that's a legitimate moral question. And later in the report, it'd be a good way of pressing the issue home to show that a presidential candidate's hired such an organization to run a registration drive.
This report doesn't say that. It declares, in the first paragraph, that John Kerry's hiring sex offenders and burglars to go door-to-door, recruiting for him.
Do you understand the subtleties between the two reporting methods?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I thought it made it clear that Kerry has nothing to do with this. I don't think it reflects badly on him. I do agree that it sounds "bad" though.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think the only thing you can question of this is if the group is really crucial to John Kerry? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. However, it doesn't say anything about if John Kerry was the one doing the hiring.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A Christian, by definition, is a follower of the teachings of Christ. He tells us to forgive everyone who asks to be forgiven, and even those who don't. There's no saying that's up to translation.
1.) Look up the definition of forgive and tell me where it says to trust a forgiven person who has shownno signs of repentence with others' lives.
2.) Can you point me to that place that says it's YOUR job to say who's a Christian and who's not? I missed it.
Dagonee Edit: If you're insisting that we can't take criminal history into account when hiring ex-felons, ask if we should let convicted child molestors work in day care centers when they get out. If you don't think we should let them them work there, then you agree with the principle we can restrict jobs based on past actions, and merely disagree with where the line should be drawn. If you do think we should let them work there, then I'm glad you won't be hiring my children's day care provider.
[ June 25, 2004, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'll go with the majority on the first part. The sex offenders make me nervous, but without knowing what kind of offense, I'll reserve judgement.
It's the burglars that worry me. While ACT may be altruistic, nothing says the ex-con didn't take the job to case your house. Do you have an alarm pad next to the door? How big is your dog? How many cars are in the drive when you're home? They can learn all sorts of things about you.
But then I'm one of those weird Christians who believes Satan is actually out there trying to influence us to sin. I don't have a problem with the crime committed. I have a problem with the person having turned so far from God that they believe this is appropriate behavior.
Sure, people can change. But how do we know these people in particular have? If they were office workers or even registers in a public place, I'd have no problems with it. The door to door bit I disagree with.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I think people who get caught speeding once should have their car taken away and ability to drive renounced...they are a clearly a threat to society and have no place on the road.
I'm just saying.
fil
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Although ACT asks job applicants to cite their criminal history and hires some felons and not others, Elleithee would not reveal how many felons ACT has hired to canvass neighborhoods and register voters.
Either the reporter just didn't cover it or ACT didn't reveal the methodology, but I want to know how they determine which ex-cons get hired and which don't.
Would they hire someone with a long history of burglary? If the crime is burglary, I think it makes a big difference whether it was a one or two time deal or the person has been in and out of jail for it.
If they hire a previous sex offender, do they take into account what the crimes were?
Would they hire a convicted rapist? How many people here would be comfortable with a convicted rapist going door-to-door where he might find many women home alone?
I believe in second chances, but that doesn't mean putting the public at risk. I don't want to condemn what ACT is doing however, until I know more about their hiring practices.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
From the ACT website, in response to this very topic.
quote:A Word From America Coming Together
We believe strongly that those few of our employees who have in the past run afoul of the law, those who have paid their debt to society, deserve every fair opportunity to rejoin mainstream America, to become productive members of their communities.
In fact, it seems clear that any individual who seeks work in a civically-oriented grassroots organization like America Coming Together is demonstrating his or her desire to make a positive contribution to society.
ACT, of course, has never knowingly employed any person whom we could possibly consider to be a threat to the community. Further, none of our canvassers has ever been accused of any untoward behavior in the course of his or her work. To the contrary, our employees have conducted themselves professionally and honorably and have altogether been a credit to this organization and the communities they serve.
This organization is currently conducting background checks on all of its employees, and will conduct such checks in the future on all potential employees. It is our policy not to employ individuals with records of certain serious criminal offenses, including all violent crimes.
We have every expectation, of course, that the Bush campaign and other Republicans will do their best to distort and play politics with this situation, to attempt to disrupt ACT and our grassroots activities. We at ACT, however, agree with these sentiments offered by President Bush just this past Monday:
““I know that many a good soul makes a mistake in their life and ends up in prison. And it seems to make sense to me to spend taxpayers’ money to help these prisoners realize a better tomorrow when they get out of prison, give them a second chance.
“You can go from prison to the White House, just so long as you have someone there to hold your hand and help you help you.” Posted by America Coming Together on Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 02:35 PM
fil
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Thanks fil.
You've saved me the trouble of finding it myself.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow -- this is an interesting paradox.
I believe in giving people a second chance (I have known some who in the past had convictions, but turned their lives around).
However, I'm also the mother of a pretty blonde 14-year-old girl -- and it makes me feel uneasy that someone who might have, in the past, been convicted of sex crimes could come door to door and discover where we live, who all in the household, names, etc. (Bok - I can't remember - do you have kids? They kind of change your perspective on life).
That said, I guess there is never any guarantee that the plumber, electrician or home remodeler I might hire at some point might have the same tendencies. You just never really know, you know?
Good thing I'm not a democrat, I guess. I don't have to worry about them canvassing my area.
Farmgirl
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
I wonder what will happen if God decides to hold past sins against those that are hollering about the ex felons being able to work. IIRC, God says your sins are forgiven AND forgotten. As far as the east is from the west? But, whgat would happen if, on Judgement Day, God is sitting there and says "Oops! You have sinned by speeding (breaking one of Man's Laws) on June 24th, 2004 (by your reckoning of Time) so off you go to the Lake of Fire...." Unless we've gone into the Minority Report mode, we can't hold what 'they MIGHT do' against them.
The article is VERY misleading in that in the opening statement it ties Kerry to ACT and the hiring of felons. Yet, in the SAME article, which if you'll notice has Republicans decrying this action, has a quote from Dubbya praising the work of
quote: government, religious and community-based programs that give a helping hand to felons after they are released from prison.
. So, what is it? Because someone is hiring felons outside the Bush admin hired felons to work? Would you ba as up in arms if it was the Bush Admin doing this? I highly doubt it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As far as I can tell, no one is hollering about ex-felons being able to work.
I'll ask again: Should convicted child molestors be allowed to work at day care centers.
If you say no, then you agree that past criminal convictions should be one criteria in evaluating a person's suitability for employment. You might disagree on where the line should be drawn in any given case, but please don't pretend anyone is suggesting someone with a speeding ticket should be banned from Heaven. And also don't pretend that taking someone's past into account in evaluating their future actions is automatically un-Christian.
If you say yes, then I think you are a dangerous person to ever be involved in the hiring process of anyone.
Dagonee
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Why is everyone latching onto Sex Crimes and instantly catagorizing it as pedophilia? There are a lot more levels to that than JUST someone going after kids. What about that kid in Georgia that had a stiff sentence slapped against him (a high school jock IIRC) and was going to have to register as an offender? Or, what about that (I THINK it was a 5 year old? I could be mistaken) that was arrested for molestation for kissing a girl? I think that happened in Florida. That kid is now registered as a sex offender. For the rest of his life!
EDIT: Too damn early in the AM to be spelling correctly....
[ June 25, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: BookWyrm ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, you have a point there, BookWrym.
Also, there is no way from the article to know just how LONG ago these people served their time. If it is 20 years in their past and they have been great citizens, I have nothing against it. If they just got out last week and haven't yet proved they won't repeat, then it makes me nervous.
I'm not against convicted felons working. I'm just a bit squeamish about them knowing my own personal information -- through whatever means. At least, especially in giving it to them without knowing they had been felons.
Like I said, this isn't an easy open-and-shut issue -- there are so many factors to consider.
Farmgirl
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
God doesn't differentiate one sin from another Dag. Sin is SIN in His eyes. Regardless of whether you break one of His Laws or one of Mans Laws. Or are you advocating throwing people in jail for the rest of their lives for crimes they commit, no matter how serious or petty?
Another addon to my previous post. Should Lawrence be in jail for the rest of his life? I think he was charged with a sex crime... I speaking of the Lawrence vs Texas case. You know, the one where they guy was arrested for having sex with another male? Should he have been imprisoned forever?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not a question only of forgiveness, it's a question of safety. Willingly endangering others is sinful, even if you're only doing so by presenting a predator with the opportunity for victims.
I'va already stated, as has almost everyone on this thread, that I'm torn on this, mainly because I don't know the specifics.
All I've responded to is the assertion that saying, person X did Y. Taking Y into account in ANY future hiring decisions is un-Christian.
It's not. It's common sense. If a trucking company hired a truck driver who had run down a Mini Cooper in a fit of road rage, I'd have a serious problem with that, and I think the hiring manager would be committing a sinful action in doing so.
We've seen the scandal in the Catholic Church because someone mistook the fact that a pedophile was forgiven for the fact that the pedophile wasn't likely to do it again. Priests that have committed one act of pedophilia should never be alone with children again. This doesn't mean they can't work or even can't be priests. It means that can't be trusted around children. The same principle applies here.
And the reason we're talking about child molestors (I've never generalized it to all sex crimes) is that they should be easy cases to decide. That you don't find them so is disturbing.
Dagonee
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Bookwyrm, so you think ACT is in the wrong then? From what fil posted, they don't hire anyone who has a history of violent crimes. According to you that shouldn't matter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You think you get to pick and choose which teachings to follow?
Kayla,
Does this apply to Catholics and abortion / birth control, for instance? I ask because that's the only other place, lately, I've heard this kind of thing (Catholic politicians voting on abortion, etc.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's amusing that so many people on this thread don't realize that criminals can ALREADY easily go door-to-door and collect information about them. Or, for that matter, apparently go to great lengths to ensure that their gardening, home repair, and contracting services do not hire anyone with a rap sheet. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, Tom, somehow that escaped our attention. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
This somes it up best, Tom. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
oooh... too slow... I was going to point that out, too, but I had to catch the bus to work...
[ June 25, 2004, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. That's the secret to success, you know: I drive. It gives me the edge I need to be snarky before anyone else.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I don't have kids. When I do, I may change my stance.
But I can't act today as if I do; that would be patronizing to those who do have children. Similarly, I think bringing this up is patronizing to me. Just because your fear is greater (due to dependents) doesn't mean it's MORE justified.
I understand the visceral feeling when one hears this story. I would feel defensive and nervous if I was contacted by a group by this.
I think the difference, which no one has really acknowledged, is that this emotional state is OUR problem, not the person going up to your door. How we choose to deal with that colors our opinions on this matter.
Dagonee: I think one's record can be used as a criterion, and the weight of that criterion can vary. That's the employer's responsibility, I don't see the point in having the citizenry make this particular criterion of primary importance by fiat.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As someone who is annoyed by almost all forms of unsolicitated commercial contanct, this gives me one more reason to hate it.
And when an organization is sending these people out unsolicitated, I think it's fair game for comment, especially when it's a political organization.
Dagonee
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i'll preface all this by saying that i am not religious.
that said, this thread clearly shows one the single most disturbing aspect of christianity (as well as other religions for that matter) to me: the ease with which a religion can shift from promoting love, understanding, and forgiveness to paranoid holier-than-thou condemnation with the absoulte assurance that "God is on my side".
maybe christianity teaches somewhere that if someone *might* be a thread to one's safety or that of one's family, it is justified to condemn, judge, and ostracize that person, i really don't know. i always hear about turning the other cheek, loving one's enemy, helping the less fortunate or those that have made mistakes.
is this the NIMBY approach to rehabilitation? it's fine if convicts get jobs, so long as they're far far away from me? in other words, push them as far away from the influential members of society so they're relegated to the worst possible jobs in the poorest sections of society? if this is what we're going to do to people who've been in jail what's the point of putting them in jail really, they're going to be paying for their crimes for the rest of their lives anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, would someone who's jumping all over people worried about their families' safety please answer my child-care question?
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dagonee, but is registering people to vote really a commercial enterprise?
(From the article, it sounds like they do demographic info work too, which is what unsettles me the most)
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, unsolicited contact of any kind. Call me Mr. Curmudgeon.
The principle is the same - this organization is sending people out to neighborhoods uninvited to knock on doors. The people it chooses to send is at least the business of the people in those neighborhoods to comment on.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it's fine if convicts get jobs, so long as they're far far away from me?
No one who's still actively involved in the discussion has said this. They've said that the crimes people committed in the past are legitimate criteria to be used when deciding to hire them.
I've given an example no has disagreed with yet; which suggests to me that no one is disagreeing with that general prinicple.
As a follow-up, no one still active in the discussion has said these convicts shouldn't be doing this job. I've said concern is natural, and the discussion is not only OK to have, but should be taken seriously as part of our overall duty to protect.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"would someone who's jumping all over people worried about their families' safety please answer my child-care question?"
I think your question, Dag, goes to the heart of whether people believe a sex offender can ever truly be "rehabilitated," or if somehow the temptation will always be there. Is it an addiction sort of thing, where avoiding contact with the temptation is the only possible solution to avoid falling back into your evil ways, or is it a crime of opportunity?
I think you'd find that more people would say that a former bank robber could work as a cashier at a supermarket than would say that a sex offender should work at a day care, simply because the first sort of crime is not considered one of inherent moral failure and/or addiction.
In general, it's for this reason that daycares do NOT hire rehabilitated child molesters. But if we believe that these people are so dangerous and rehabilitation so ineffective that any job which puts them in potential contact with a public that includes children -- as in this case -- is a danger, we should move immediately to a lifetime sentence situation; clearly, rehabilitation and/or fear of punishment are not deterrents if we can reach that conclusion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, it's not any job that puts them in contact with children. In places where they can be watched constantly (which isn't that hard nowadays), and children happen to go there, the danger is not nearly as great. A molester sees a child he wants in public, but is stuck working, he can't go after that child and doesn't know where they live. A molester going door-to-door can use his work time to scope potential victims.
I do think rehabilitation is pretty much bogus with most rapists, and think sentences should be longer and paroles more supervised.
Dagonee
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Farmgirl, I highly doubt that you'd have a sex offender coming to your door to try to get you to sign up (since the company does background checks on the people that they hire.
quote: This organization is currently conducting background checks on all of its employees, and will conduct such checks in the future on all potential employees. It is our policy not to employ individuals with records of certain serious criminal offenses, including all violent crimes.
You're probably more likely to run into a convicted felon (or possibly sex offender) working in a fast food store or the grocery store than ACT (at least it seems to me to be that way).
My guess is the only way to keep them out of your neighborhood would be to have high percentages of registered voters (and leave armed guards at every street corner ). They'll probably canvas entire neighborhoods much like how people do when they sell magazine subscriptions or leave little hanging door ads on your doorknob.
Personally, I might be a bit uncomfortable having the person in my house with just one of us here, but if that's the case, I'll just go outside to talk to them and all that fun stuff. Then again, I've been around the less-than-perfect people all my life, so I guess I'm used to it.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
Dag: my statements about christians were directed at michael, and as a general observation of how people in general sometimes act.
i agree with you about the child care issue, obviously, what really bothered me was the assumption that the concept of having ex-cons go door to door was inherently evil because convicts are bad people, regardless of their crime. this claim was not made explicitly, but it was implied. As for this specific instance, i don't think i'd really be all that concerned if a child molester knocked on my door and asked me some questions. in many places child molesters have to do this when they move into a neighborhood anyway. maybe it's because i don't have kids, and i'm prone to be careless about that sort or thing anyway (i never lock my door).
i'm also with you regarding unsolicited disturbances: i think they should all be illegal Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK. This discussion's been so interesting I forgot the tone of the opening post, and ArCHer's subsequent rebuke.
There has not been enough information posted in this thread about THIS particular program to say it's definitely an instance of mistaken felon hiring.
But I do think door-to-door requires heavier scrutiny than most things.
Dagonee
[ June 25, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
slacker --
yes, as I said in one of my previous posts (which Tom and others must have ignored) I realized that even though reading the link the original post made me feel uneasy, I said we could be exposing the kids to harmful people every day -- our plumbers, or electricians or mailman -- could be criminals -- we don't know.
It is just one of those things you have to pray that God will protect you from those who might harm you and/or your family.
I will say in my OWN past -- years ago -- I did some things that would be considered illegal (not violent or sexual crimes, but criminal nonetheless) but never got caught. However, if I HAD been caught during my wild years and locked up, would I want you to hold against me now the kind of person I was then? Certainly not.
That is why I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt around ME. But I am probably overly cautious/protective when it comes to people my kids are around.
Farmgirl
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Good points, Farmgirl... And I agree with you Dagonee that sex offenders should have harsher punishments. I also think that they cannot be rehabilitated and should have longer jail sentences. Maybe even be sentenced for the rest of their lives. Child molesters are more harmful than murderers or drug offenders.
I am reminded of a show I saw on PBS the other day involving Mexican illegal immigrants and how the town was in an uproar over them assuming that they would rape their daughters and rob them. This I thought was ridiculous considering how many crimes are committed by people the victim actually knows. People are more likely to be raped by close neighbours and even friends than strangers. Therefore, people should not assume that because these are former convicts that they will commit crime again.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Sorry, I'm a bit tired so I missed your post when I was writing mine. I'm glad that you would want to know more about the person before passing judgement.
When I worry about my info, I worry more about companies selling or giving away my info (airlines, banks, phone companies, etc) to third parties, but that's mainly cause there's even less stopping them from abusing my info than a random person (at least in my eyes).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think a lot of us concerned about this aren't trying to pass judgement so much as our wariness is aroused. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: I think a lot of us concerned about this aren't trying to pass judgement so much as our wariness is aroused. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Maybe it is the blood pathogen sort of argument. When learning "Universal Precautions" for how to handle blood or other bodily fluids in an accident or other situation we are taught to treat everyone's blood as if it contained the HIV virus. So you handle every situation as if infection was possible and you will be safer than when you make assumptions for some and not others.
I think having good precautions when you answer the door is good, regardless if the person is 6'5" with tattoos and a "vote democrat" badge or if they are in a nice suit with a copy of the Bible (and the Watchtower!) underneath their arms.
I have a daughter as others on here have and I am freaked out as anyone else is when I consider what and who is out there. But then, I also reassure myself that I should focus more on good driving habits and quality education and a good diet in the home...those are more likely to be areas of concern in my daughter's life than some random sex offender.
fil
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
I didn't really read a lot of the posts, because there are a lot more posters here than I'm used to, and I don't feel like reading everything. But I think I can state my points without reading it all. Let me know if I'm wrong (just try to be brief about it, or I might skip over it ).
I'm guessing by the first few responses, you guys are saying:
Don't say wether someone is a Christian
and
Forgiveness is different from trust
To the first one: I'm not saying any one individual is not a Christian. I'm saying people who don't try to follow the teachings of Christ aren't Christians.
To the second one: No they're not. You can't forgive someone without trusting them. I'm pretty sure Jesus said something about this, but I can't think of where to look to give you chapter and verse.
Instead, I'll say it like I think Jesus might have said it:
How can you forgive a man, and yet refuse to trust in him? Do you give a shepheard a flock, and deny him pasture?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, you don't actually deserve the courtesy of a response, since you couldn't be bothered to read anyone else's, but I'll bite.
Do you think that a convicted child molester who has served his time should be allowed to teach at a daycare center?
If not, how do you reconcile that decision with your previous post?
If so, and he molested one of the children entrusted to his care, do you think the person who hired him has any moral (not legal) culpability for the molestation?
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
If a convicted child molester is truly repentant he wouldn't seek a job at a daycare center.
And since when does sex crime always translate to child molester? You're reading the story wrong, because it was a conservative writing it. These campaigners aren't going out and finding ex-cons to go door to door. Ex-cons are volunteering because they aren't allowed to support Kerry with their own vote.
Haven't they paid their debt to society? Don't you find it appauling that the only things ex-cons get little of are things they need to turn their lives around? If they want to be criminals again, they'll be criminals, and yet when they try to get real jobs, they're often times tunred down because they're ex-cons.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
What if the child molester just really really loves being around children and believes they can withstand the tempation? Are they not truly repentant then?
Edit: This isn't about child molesters being hired by ACT. This is about trust and forgiveness. I hear the sounds of hedging the issue....
[ June 25, 2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Well then, I think, that it's then both the employer's fault (if the molestor is hired, then molests) for not helping the molester stay away from temptation, and the molestor's for not staying away from temptation.
But you wanna know what true repentance is? Look for the child molestors who take castrating medication, and or actually get castrated. Both proven methods...
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
fil, I am all about Universal Precautions.
Most rapists of young girls are people well-known to them. Most perpetuators of abuse are well-known to the abused.
Don't go looking for the boogeyman to ring your doorbell with a pamphlet. Seriously, he probably has a key.
quote:I didn't really read a lot of the posts, because there are a lot more posters here than I'm used to, and I don't feel like reading everything. But I think I can state my points without reading it all.
The problem with this approach, Archer, is that other people here aren't tuning in just to read what your points are. [not to pick on you, same for everybody here -- save for people like Chris Bridges, who are interesting and articulate enough to merit a column on their own] It is a discussion forum, which means people take turns talking and responding. If there is too much for you to read and respond to, you can pick a particular point or person to respond to, but the tactic of "here's what I think, regardless" will lead to most people just skipping over it when they see your name.
And then you'll feel rejected, and you'll start a thread about how nobody responds to your posts, and you'll set off another Grand Hatrack Introspection Time regarding How We Treat Newbies, and ...
just don't. Please. *grin You are worth more than that.
[ June 26, 2004, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And since when does sex crime always translate to child molester? You're reading the story wrong, because it was a conservative writing it. These campaigners aren't going out and finding ex-cons to go door to door. Ex-cons are volunteering because they aren't allowed to support Kerry with their own vote.
Look, everyone still posting about this coming down on the side of prudence has already said they either don't have a problem with this specific instance or that they don't know enough to form an opinion. Stop avoiding the issue: Is it OK to take someone's past actions into account when hiring them or not?
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:Stop avoiding the issue: Is it OK to take someone's past actions into account when hiring them or not?
Who is avoiding? I think people agree that employers and and do (and are certain positions, it is required by law). I think the bigger point is what parts of a person's past will keep them from a job? Or when does the past get to stay in the past? We are using the extreme example, the convicted child molester getting a job at a daycare and that is just silly...they would have to a) lie and b) have a stupid provider who doesn't do the legally mandated fingerprint/background check required (at least in this state) to provide care to children. And this is just about any job involving giving care to people, children or not.
But where the law isn't specific, that is where the discussion is pointed. Should a person who robbed a liquor store at 19 still be paying for this at 29, even though they paid their dues to society? How about at 39? 49? I know I really don't want to be too accountable for stupid things I did at age 19.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I had my first anecdotal information about some ACT workers. They did a sweep of the street where some friends live (not too far from where I live, so they may come here). Anyway, they were probably the more typical ACT workers...young, idealistic and concerned college students. Very nice, not pushy. Not like the Watchtower peddlers and Mormon Bible pushers that have gotten our house. Just kidding. The Mormon's were very nice and only vaguely pushy.
fil
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
To repeat what has already been said, there are about a million ways you can be listed as a 'sex offender'. 'Sex Offender' does not always equal 'child molestor'. For instance, from the original article:
quote: Among the ACT employees in Ohio was a woman convicted of gross sexual imposition. She completed her parole 12 years ago.
What exactly does that sentence mean? No one knows the specifics of her case. What are the details? Aren't they important before we make assumptions? How long a go were the other convictions? Isn't there a difference between last month and twelve years a go?
Tangentially, I think if a person doesn't commit a crime, regardless of what their crime was, for, say, ten years, I think their records should be sealed. It's ludicrous for people to have records tailing them for the rest of their lives once they've shown that they are capable of being law-abiding citizens.
Here is the response from ACT, in case you were wondering:
quote: We believe strongly that those few of our employees who have in the past run afoul of the law, those who have paid their debt to society, deserve every fair opportunity to rejoin mainstream America, to become productive members of their communities.
In fact, it seems clear that any individual who seeks work in a civically-oriented grassroots organization like America Coming Together is demonstrating his or her desire to make a positive contribution to society.
ACT, of course, has never knowingly employed any person whom we could possibly consider to be a threat to the community. Further, none of our canvassers has ever been accused of any untoward behavior in the course of his or her work. To the contrary, our employees have conducted themselves professionally and honorably and have altogether been a credit to this organization and the communities they serve.
This organization is currently conducting background checks on all of its employees, and will conduct such checks in the future on all potential employees. It is our policy not to employ individuals with records of certain serious criminal offenses, including all violent crimes.
We have every expectation, of course, that the Bush campaign and other Republicans will do their best to distort and play politics with this situation, to attempt to disrupt ACT and our grassroots activities. We at ACT, however, agree with these sentiments offered by President Bush just this past Monday:
““I know that many a good soul makes a mistake in their life and ends up in prison. And it seems to make sense to me to spend taxpayers’ money to help these prisoners realize a better tomorrow when they get out of prison, give them a second chance.
“You can go from prison to the White House, just so long as you have someone there to hold your hand and help you help you.”
Good for Mr. Bush and good for ACT for not bowing to what may very well be unfounded hysteria.
edit: I see fil already posted quoted response. Pardon.
edit some more: in fact, all my points are pretty much redundant. :/
[ June 26, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Who is avoiding? I think people agree that employers and and do (and are certain positions, it is required by law).
My response was clearly addressed at the particular person I was quoting. I think we've pretty much been in agreement most of this page, fil.
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:
Stop avoiding the issue: Is it OK to take someone's past actions into account when hiring them or not?
Yes, within reason. How apt are you at judging a person's threat? How well do you understand the circumstances around a person's incarceration? And how important are the consequences, if you should judge wrongly?
The only generalizations that I can make is that you are going to have people who think that all people are wicked and can't be trusted; people who think that God made mankind a certain way and there is very little on earth, and the changes are minor, we can do to change them(the good will always be good and the bad or incompetent will always be bad and incompetent.) I imagine that these people don't want an ex-con anywhere near anything they care about.
Then you have people who think that anyone with the right mix of guidance can transcend most criminal impulses; people who believe that only the Lord can judge damnation and we must be in the business of forgiveness if we are to live in Christ's example; and people who believe that it's inhumane to curtail someone's rights on the inkling that they may do something wrong, if anything, it creates more criminals. I imagine that the Priest in Les Miserables fits on this side. And to tell the truth, just about everyone who has made a positive impact in my life would be in the latter catagory, so you know where I stand.
______________________
I'd like to think that the nation would be a little more humble when coming to these decisions. Not only do we constantly imprison innocent people, but one of the most extensive investigative agencies in the world thought that Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles and weapons of Mass Destruction. Now Colin Powell is more capable than I am, and if he can make a judgemental whoops this big, then it doesn't bode well for the rest of us.
[ June 26, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Irami, I don't think we disagree. It's clear you think that in some fashion, it's acceptable to take past convictions into account, as I think most reasonable people do. My main argument is with a certain poster who has basically said this is never OK.
For recovered drug addicts, I would probably not have a problem as long as they kept me posted on their recovery. Depending on the job, I might want occassional testing.
For former drug (street-level) dealers, petty thiefs, etc., basically the property crimes for people trying to support themselves, I might hire them as long as the job didn't give them the opportunity to steal. That means no unsupervised time, no access to cash or small valuables, and no access to the building alone, monitoring, etc. For former white collar criminals (fraud, embezzlement, etc.), I wouldn't hire them for any financial job at all. But if I could find another job for them I would.
There is a class of criminals best described as predators - multiple assaults, rapes, child molestations, even murders. I'd hesitate to hire them in any situation where they could endanger others. Which is a serious problem, I realize, but I've already seen too many examples people committing assaults while out on bail for rape to take a lot of risk on them. I don't know what the solution is.
Dagonee
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
If a drug user can do the job, why should it matter what they do on their own time?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By definition, a drug ADDICT (not user) cannot restrict his drug use to non-harmful times.
Dagonee
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
I avoided the issue? I believe there was an entire post about the issue, wasn't there? Since when is adressing a more broad issue with all the others avoiding the issue?
I'll summerize the major points made by my side of the argument:
The Bible pretty much says to not even consider the past if the person in question repents.
People who are released from prison have served their alloted sentance, and any persecution then on does nothing but push them back into their old lifstyle.
People trying to get jobs are the ones who are trying to change their life.
Certain crimes are the result of diseases that, although can only be treated and with that person's cooperation, musn't be held against the person, just taken into account (IE: Drug addiction, pedophilia, etc.).
Does anyone else think this thread title is funny?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Well, if you are honestly making a distinction between the two, fine. Lots do not, and drug testing is unnecessary to catch addicts. Someone unlucky enough to get caught with a joint or a pill is not necessarily an addict, even if they do choose treatment over jail time. I am sure I could get diagnosed as an addict if I needed to avoid the draft, but I manage to work a full time job just as well as anyone else.
The only time testing is justified is when it can catch someone who is currently impaired, rather than had fun on the weekend, or two weeks ago. None of the 5 most common drugs* tested for impair one after the recreational effects wear off as much as an alcohol hangover does. Are you suggesting testing for previous alcohol use, or is that one off the hook because it is too entrenched in the culture to make illegal? Furthermore, in most situations (probably (hopefully) not the jobs you were referring to, but most) testing is an immoral violation of privacy. If someone is doing a poor job, fire them for that.
Also, I know lots of drug dealers who would never steal from their company. Dealers who sell short bags rapidly lose their customer base, and most of them are as morally upstanding as anyone else. (Which says more about people in general than dealers, I admit.) Dealers do not steal to support their drug habits, they deal.
*Marijuana, Heroin, Cocaine, Amphetamines, PCP
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Marijuana should be legalized, no? All outlawing it does is make it unregulatable, and gives power to criminals. People say marijuana is a gateway drug. Well isn't it a gateway drug because it's illegal? Aren't cigarettes gateways to marijuana?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I would say caffeine, alcohol and nicotine are bigger gateway drugs than marijuana. Very few people start with marijuana. For me, it was caffeine -> alcohol -> hydrocodone -> DXM -> marijuana.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The Bible pretty much says to not even consider the past if the person in question repents.
I think this is a matter of personal interpretation. I *personally* don't think the Bible says this anywhere. I stand by my belief that Christ has no problem with me forgiving and yet being cautious of future offenses. I don't think Christ expects us to be door-mats, though some have interpreted the "turn the other cheek" as meaning that. This is aside from the ACT issue.
And as you said about the hypothetical child-molester-wanting-to-work-in-day-care not being repentant, how can *I* know if someone has "truly repented" or not? Must I always assume they have?
Matt. 10: 16
16 ¶ Behold, I send you forth as sheep• in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise• as serpents, and harmless• as doves.
[ June 27, 2004, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'll summerize the major points made by my side of the argument:
Actually, as best I can tell, no one else is on your side of this argument in this thread.
quote:People who are released from prison have served their alloted sentance, and any persecution then on does nothing but push them back into their old lifstyle.
People who are releaded from prison often haven't served their alloted sentence yet, and the law imposes some lifetime sanctions on most felons (no gun ownership or possession allowed, no voting in some states, etc.).
quote:People trying to get jobs are the ones who are trying to change their life.
And society and employers should help them, as long as they can do so without endangering others.
quote:Certain crimes are the result of diseases that, although can only be treated and with that person's cooperation, musn't be held against the person, just taken into account (IE: Drug addiction, pedophilia, etc.).
Please don't ever insult the victims of child molestation again like that. While it's true that most molestors were molested themselves, it's also true that most molestation victims do not become molestors.
Child molestation isn't "sick," it's "sickening," and until society starts to understand the difference we won't ever get a handle on the problem. They can control their actions; they choose not to.
They're might be psycholigical factors or disorders that cause them to choose that way, but the cause of each incident is the molestor deciding to ruin a child's life.
We don't say adult rapists are merely acting from a disease, even though their sexual drive is screwed up. Why do people give that excuse to some of the worst predators in the world?
Dagonee
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
quote:People who are releaded from prison often haven't served their alloted sentence yet, and the law imposes some lifetime sanctions on most felons (no gun ownership or possession allowed, no voting in some states, etc.).
No, they have served their sentence. You're speaking of cases where the sentence is something along the lines of "20-25 years with the possibility of parole in 15."
quote:And society and employers should help them, as long as they can do so without endangering others.
So we agree. See? there are people on my side.
quote:Please don't ever insult the victims of child molestation again like that. While it's true that most molestors were molested themselves, it's also true that most molestation victims do not become molestors.
Child molestation isn't "sick," it's "sickening," and until society starts to understand the difference we won't ever get a handle on the problem. They can control their actions; they choose not to.
They're might be psycholigical factors or disorders that cause them to choose that way, but the cause of each incident is the molestor deciding to ruin a child's life.
We don't say adult rapists are merely acting from a disease, even though their sexual drive is screwed up. Why do people give that excuse to some of the worst predators in the world?
When did I ever insult the victims? Child molestors have a mental disease. I never said they couldn't control themselves, I said the opposite. I said it should be taken into account.
Adult rapists have nothing to do with child molestors. They are two completely different things and only have two things in common: sex and the victim not wanting to do it.
In fact, there are two types of people considered child molestors by the law. Using famous examples you have the R. Kelly/ Charles Chaplin molestors who like girls around 15-18 years old, and you have the Michael Jackson child molestors. The difference in those is that the Kelly/Chaplin type doesn't rape at all. By the way, the Kelly/Chaplin age difference was the common age difference between husband and wife for the majority of the middle ages.
I'm not trying to justify either one, but I am saying your perspective is way out of wack.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, they have served their sentence. You're speaking of cases where the sentence is something along the lines of "20-25 years with the possibility of parole in 15."
No, I'm speaking of about 20 different combinations of things, including split sentences, suspended sentences, indefinite sentences, parole, supervised release, and halfway houses. Further, there are lifetime sanctions on almost all felons, including registration requirements, notification requirements, gun ownership restriction, and others.
quote:So we agree. See? there are people on my side.
How on earth does this correlate to your saying someone can't be a Christian if they take a felon's record into account when hiring?
quote:Adult rapists have nothing to do with child molestors. They are two completely different things and only have two things in common: sex and the victim not wanting to do it.
In fact, there are two types of people considered child molestors by the law. Using famous examples you have the R. Kelly/ Charles Chaplin molestors who like girls around 15-18 years old, and you have the Michael Jackson child molestors. The difference in those is that the Kelly/Chaplin type doesn't rape at all. By the way, the Kelly/Chaplin age difference was the common age difference between husband and wife for the majority of the middle ages.
I'm not trying to justify either one, but I am saying your perspective is way out of wack.
Child molestation is not the "result of disease." It is a conscious choice. It's just another excuse that makes people less responsible for their actions. We call it a disease because we can't understand those motivations. It doesn't mean it is one.
The suggestion that molestation is caused by a disease is an insult to every single survivor of sexual abuse who does not become an abuser.
Dagonee
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Either way, they still pay their debt to society if a judge decides their debt is less than originally thought.
quote:How on earth does this correlate to your saying someone can't be a Christian if they take a felon's record into account when hiring?
First off, I never said that. I said Christians aren't against hiring ex-cons. I never said you shouldn't take their past into account at all. I said if they show remorse, you don't take it into account. If a guy comes in and says "I robbed a bank, and my only regret was getting caught. Can I have access to your cash registers now?" you don't hire them.
quote:Child molestation is not the "result of disease." It is a conscious choice. It's just another excuse that makes people less responsible for their actions. We call it a disease because we can't understand those motivations. It doesn't mean it is one.
What kind of idiot idea is that? Oh yeah, these people CHOOSE to be something that's despised by society! You probably think the same thing about homosexuals, don't you? The only reason someone would be a pedophile is if that's what they are. If you could just all of a sudden choose to not be a pedophile and start being attracted to women, there would be no such thing as a child molester.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not a question of choosing not to be a pedophile, it's a question of choosing not to molest children. And yes, they can choose not to. The biggest problem in combating aberrant people, from stalkers to molestors to serial killers, is that too many people think that because they can't imagine doing something heinous without being insane, the criminal can't either.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, while I think you are probably correct in certain cases, I just don't think you can simply say all sexual deviants can simply change by choice, without help/treatment of some sort. Some have a mild affliction that can be stopped simply by choosing to, or by some sort of small negative external influence (a "close shave", a life altering choice that getting religion, etc.) Others can try, but the "disease" is too overpowering for mere choice.
I think it would be more constructive for both sides to see this as a sliding scale, and debate accordingly. I think both hardlines are incorrect in the majority of cases.
-Bok
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I couldn't let this comment go by without challenge:
quote: You can't forgive someone without trusting them. I'm pretty sure Jesus said something about this, but I can't think of where to look to give you chapter and verse.
Forgiveness and trust can be related, but are absolutely not required to be. You can certainly forgive someone without ever trusting them again.
Christians are commanded to forgive everyone. Forgiveness is a gift. We are not commanded to trust. Trust must be earned.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I would be uncomfortable with a former felon convicted of a sex crime at my door. However, I don't like to open my door for strangers, period. It's me and 2 small kids, and I don't take chances no matter what the person says they're there for.
space opera
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fair enough, Book. But I still stand by the theory that the major obstacle to stopping child molestation is a societal tendency to avoid admitting that some people choose to molest children. It's natural to deny, but it's deadly to efforts to combat it.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). They'll probably canvas entire neighborhoods much like how people do when they sell magazine subscriptions or leave little hanging door ads on your doorknob.