♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Dec 1, 2012 5:24:10 GMT
Thanks to these dimwit, nimcompoop judges pedophiles in the UK are free to prowl and stalk children without being recognized by citizens as the scumbag predators they are! It's no better in Germany.
Facebook was doing it's public duty by warning the public of these predators because the government is only interested in the predators' right to privacy!
The US has "Megan's Law","Dru's Law" and other laws with protect the citizen from dangerous sex offenders by alerting the public with government sponsored websites and databases!!www.rappler.com/life-and-style/technology/17085-facebook-ordered-to-remove-paedophile-monitoring-page QUOTE: Facebook ordered to remove pedophile monitoring page12/01/2012 LONDON, United Kingdom - A Facebook page set up to monitor pedophiles has been removed after a judge in Northern Ireland ruled Friday, November 30, that it risked infringing the human rights of a convicted sex offender. The man, who cannot be identified, started legal proceedings against the social networking site after discovering his photograph and threatening comments had been posted on the page. High Court judge Bernard McCloskey ruled some content on the page amounted to prima facie harassment of the man, known only as XY. The man had previously been given a six-year jail sentence for a string of child sex offences committed more than 20 years ago. Judge McCloskey said: "Society has dealt with the plaintiff in accordance with the rule of law. "He has been punished by incarceration and he is subject to substantial daily restrictions on his lifestyle." The judge in his ruling gave Facebook 72 hours to take the original page down. A spokeswoman for Facebook said: "We are considering our next steps in light of the court judgment and we have nothing further to add at this stage." The page, called 'Keeping our kids safe from predators', was no longer visible at 20:00GMT but a new page entitled 'Keeping our kids safe from predators 2' had appeared, gaining over 2,400 likes in just a few hours. It is not clear whether the creator of the new page is the same as the user that set up the original one. However, the new page's administrator wrote in a posting at 15:30GMT: "Thats (sic) the first page gone sad day." More than 5,000 people had liked the original page before its removal. Some of the latest posts were written after the judge made his ruling. Facebook is understood to have removed the man's photo and comments made about him but his legal team insisted that the page should be shut down.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2012 6:53:46 GMT
I couldn't disagree more. This man had served his sentence and should be allowed to resume normal life, not be harried by a bunch of hysterical vigilantes who pick on child abusers to make their own nasty selves feel good.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 1, 2012 9:07:07 GMT
Vigilante 'justice' is always very, very dangerous - just think of the number of times the vigilantes target the wrong people.
This has happened even when details of the right people have been made public.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 1, 2012 9:12:36 GMT
Judge McCloskey said: "Society has dealt with the plaintiff in accordance with the rule of law. "He has been punished by incarceration and he is subject to substantial daily restrictions on his lifestyle." Which means the public is being protected, and the man is not free to prowl and stalk children . What more do the vigilantes propose to do?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2012 13:17:39 GMT
Judge McCloskey said: "Society has dealt with the plaintiff in accordance with the rule of law. "He has been punished by incarceration and he is subject to substantial daily restrictions on his lifestyle." Which means the public is being protected, and the man is not free to prowl and stalk children . What more do the vigilantes propose to do? Castrate him maybe ?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 1, 2012 13:20:38 GMT
In the United States, out of 300 million people, over 3/4 million have been tagged as "sex offenders". That's an awful high number. How many of these are actually dangerous child rapers? Well, annoyingly that information doesn't seem to be available. But we classify them as level 1, 2 or 3. 1's are people who parked in the wrong spot or were nude in public essentially. 2's did a little more than that, but not seriously like a 3. 3's are the ones that did terrible things. I'd like to know how many threes there are. And as for the 1's and 2's, what are they even doing being listed? I mean it's not just a matter of being on a list, these people cant get jobs or apartments or go to a library or go to college - lifelong! Have we gone too far? Well it does all remind me of what Hitler did to the Jews. Demonize them. Tag them. Ostracize them from life.
I guess it's just a little way humans can act, huh? Single out some people to hate, to demonize, to blacklist, to ostracize? (Oh yes, yes, remember what the movie "Mean Girls" was about? This behavior is in us.
And yes, sure, they did something wrong. But perhaps 3/4 of them didn't do something wrong enough (for this kind of treatment). And they have already "paid their debt to society".
There are those who understand this. Even the courts declared proposed registry laws as unconstitutional, but they were pushed through anyway. Constitution be damned. And then there is a vast populace being brainwashed by their tellies into thinking all "sex offenders" are horrible monsters who should be treated as badly as possible, in fact they're lucky we let them live, and public money should not go to them, and rah rah rah aaargh, as mean as possible, they're encouraged to feel towards these people. I've watched it. I've watched people hate at their television screens dutifully and virulently.
Well I live in a right wing state, a police state, so it doesn't surprise me to see my government go a bit overboard. But it's dubious if the world chose to imitate us by making such sweeping registries too. But hey, global society / global trends right? We've created a class of hated people, planet-wide.
I'm not saying a registry isn't a good thing. It is. But we put too many people on it! And we've created a class of monsters to hate.
And I suggest people who self-appoint themselves as somehow guarding justice, like whoever it was that made that facebook page, actually should be stopped. I hear the word "vigilante" being used, and that's never a good thing. Mobs get ugly you know. Shame on my government for going too far and for doing nothing to stem the ill feeling.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2012 14:40:15 GMT
I believe ALL child molesters should be castrated.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 1, 2012 14:44:21 GMT
I believe ALL child molesters should be castrated. Yes. It could be done chemically. They'd end up with zero sex drive, and calmer too.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 14, 2013 22:41:23 GMT
I believe ALL child molesters should be castrated. Yes. It could be done chemically. They'd end up with zero sex drive, and calmer too. You're wrong about that Hunny! Predators can obtain testosterone over the internet or black market to restore their hormonal drive. Even worse some predators will increase the sadism involved in their attacks to get their kick and compensate for the lack of sexual release.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 14, 2013 22:47:44 GMT
Disgusting how some creepo judical system will endanger it's own citizens to cater to a dangerous convicted pedophile fleeing justice! www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/14/uk-high-court-blocks-extradition-convicted-sex-offender-over-draconian-us-laws/ QUOTE: European courts spare accused pedophile, hacker from American justiceJan. 14, 2013 Shawn Sullivan is a fugitive and accused pedophile, and to some, he's also a poster child for a European judicial system that often would rather let criminals roam their streets freely than see them subjected to American justice. Nearly 20 years ago, Sullivan, who is now 43, fled to Ireland after being charged with raping a 14-year-old girl and molesting two boys in Minnesota. Sullivan, who had dual citizenship, was accused of assaulting two girls in Ireland in 1997, but fled to London, where police finally caught up with him in June 2010. Although he did time in Wandsworth Prison for his crimes in the United Kingdom, when U.S. authorities sought to have him brought to justice on American soil, a British judge refused. The reason: The U.S. policy of committing repeat child molesters to civil confinement -- where they are kept off the streets even after completing prison terms -- was deemed too barbaric. "Minnesota’s law is said to be more Draconian than many others,” Lord Justice Moses of England’s High Court of Justice said in his ruling in June of last year. "...it is clear to me that were an order of civil commitment to be made, it would be a flagrant denial of this appellant’s rights." Jeffrey Cramer, a former federal prosecutor who is now managing director of Kroll Advisory Solutions, told FoxNews.com European courts are increasingly shielding criminals from U.S. penalties they consider too harsh. “The European courts are starting to view U.S. courts as being so Draconian that it violates human rights,” said Cramer. “They’ve always felt this way pertaining to death penalty cases, but now we are seeing it more in fraud and sexual abuse cases.” Sullivan's case is one of several instances in which European -- particularly British -- courts have substituted their idea of justice for America's, in what some see as a blatant disregard for the spirit, if not the letter, of extradition agreements. -- In November, Moses denied extradition for former Iranian Ambassador Nosratollah Tajik, who was arrested in London in a 2006 international sting operation conducted by U.S. Department of Homeland Security agents. After six years of delays, Moses discharged Tajik, who was trying to smuggle night vision goggles to Iran, saying extraditing him to the U.S. could hurt relations between the UK and Iran and endanger embassy staff in Tehran. -- A month earlier, Great Britain's high court also blocked extradition of alleged hacker Gary McKinnon to the U.S., where he is accused of hacking into NASA and Pentagon computers. The ruling cited McKinnon's battles with Asperger’s Syndrome and depression in determining that imprisonment in the U.S., where he faced up to 70 years in prison, could constitute a violation of his human rights. He is now free. -- In perhaps the most high-profile case of a European court denying U.S. access to a fugitive whose crimes were committed on American soil, filmmaker Roman Polanski avoided extradition from France on charges he raped a 13-year-old girl more than three decades ago. Swiss authorities finally nabbed him in 2010 at the request of U.S. prosecutors, but when it came time to send him to the U.S. to face justice, a judge there overruled it, citing a technicality. Under the rule of non-inquiry, nations that have extradition agreements typically are not supposed to second-guess one another on procedures and due process, Bruce Zagari, an attorney with Washington-based firm Berliner Corcoran & Rowe, who specializes in international white collar crime, including extradition issues, told FoxNews.com. Zagari believes the policy of civil confinement and the U.S. policy toward detainees at Guantanamo Bay may have prompted European judges to no longer feel compelled to abide by the rule. That means Shawn Sullivan, who has been accused of molesting children on two continents and married a British Ministry of Justice worker while in prison, can now roam free -- as long as he stays out of the U.S. "The British court has nevertheless denied the U.S. extradition request because of its concern that, if returned, Sullivan would not receive fair treatment because the Minnesota civil commitment program for sex offenders could deprive him of his freedom and fundamental rights if the UK was to extradite him," Zagari said. Cramer said Sullivan should be brought to justice in the U.S. “I think any rational person would say that he [Sullivan] should come back," said Cramer. "After all, he absconded."
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 14, 2013 23:24:22 GMT
I don't want to get into the specifics of individual cases but even paedophiles are human beings and have human rights.
The law isn't about deciding whether or not the 'rights' of the victim or perpetrator are paramount; it's about trying to decide on proportionate punishment.
If (as the judges clearly believe) certain types of punishment DO violate the accused's human rights it doesn't matter if it's over a parking ticket, a paedophile offence or murder.
If it's a human rights violation then it's a human rights violation.
I've had furious arguments on two other forums with conservatives who refuse to believe that criminals HAVE human rights and many of them don't even believe NON-CRIMINALS have human rights.
I remember vividly about half a dozen conservatives claiming that we do NOT have a human right NOT to be murdered, raped, stolen from or whatever.
When I asked them on what basis they thought those crimes should be punished they came back with the same tired old nonsense about trying to intimidate other criminals into NOT doing those crimes.
So, unpopular though my view probably is, and much as I despise nonces, I have to say the judges are right.
And any nation that has totally immoral laws like the Three Strikes law and the Law of Parties is still about one notch on the ladder above Somalia and Saudi Arabia.
I don't think the US at the moment IS a country we should consider extraditing people to because its judicial system is utterly barbaric in many respects.
I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak flying my way for what I've said but I've always stood by the words of Luther 'here I stand; I can do no other.'
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 8:36:38 GMT
Part of the problem may be that the US tends to treat all sex crimes the same. There is a world of difference between a man who forces himself onto a terrified and resisting 14 year old girl and man agreeing to have sex with an eager girl of the same age who enjoys the experience. Yet both are classed as "rape" and presumably both convicts are subject to the same lifetime confinement after their jail term.
It is also true that proportionately fewer sex offenders re-offend after release than other criminals.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 8:58:08 GMT
I think when you commit such a heinous crime as sexual molestation of children then you should loose some of your human rights. The child lost his/her human right not to be molested. The molester should therefore loose rights too. there should be an exception that means it is not a human rights violation in these circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 8:59:44 GMT
Part of the problem may be that the US tends to treat all sex crimes the same. There is a world of difference between a man who forces himself onto a terrified and resisting 14 year old girl and man agreeing to have sex with an eager girl of the same age who enjoys the experience. Yet both are classed as "rape" and presumably both convicts are subject to the same lifetime confinement after their jail term. It is also true that proportionately fewer sex offenders re-offend after release than other criminals. the 14 year old is still a child, regardless and the adult should know the law . The law is crystal clear the age of consent is 16. It should be treated as seriously imo otherwise you will get men using that as an excuse to molest 14 year olds, "she enjoyed it , she encouraged me etc , lame and feble excuses to breach the law.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:53:07 GMT
I didn't say that having sex with a 14 year old shouldn't be a crime; what I am saying is that it shouldn't be treated as seriously as someone who violently abuses a protesting victim.
A sentencing policy that decrees that all sex offenders should be kept off the streets for the rest of their lives is just nonsense, and it is that kind of policy that leads Europe's judges to refuse extradition.
I know it doesn't happen all over the USA and some states are very careful to categorie offences, as Hunny pointed out upthread.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 12:06:34 GMT
Human rights are the rights we have just because we are human beings.
As the mother of three kids and a former rape victim I'm hardly a friend to paedophiles.
Even so the definition of sex offender in the law is crazy.
Two 14-year olds for instance haveing consensual sex get lumped in the same bracket as the likes of Savile which is insane and unjust.
Any kind of sentencing that doesn't take account of individual circumstances is just lynch law.
|
|
|
Post by toby on Jan 15, 2013 13:38:42 GMT
Toby comments.:- Most folk would agree that when you sexually assault children then you lose your rights. You lose your right to freedom for a start when convicted, you lose the right to a Family life etc. etc. Unlike a simple robbery which does not induce lifelong angst in the victim, sexual assault leaves victims mentally and emotionally scarred. Because of this I am in favour of maximum penalties for sex offenders. I note the oft-quoted comment about the two 14 year olds having consensual sex but if they don't know the difference between right and wrong at the age of 14, then maybe a spell in the slammer will educate them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:20:52 GMT
Toby comments.:- Most folk would agree that when you sexually assault children then you lose your rights. You lose your right to freedom for a start when convicted, you lose the right to a Family life etc. etc. Unlike a simple robbery which does not induce lifelong angst in the victim, sexual assault leaves victims mentally and emotionally scarred. Because of this I am in favour of maximum penalties for sex offenders. I note the oft-quoted comment about the two 14 year olds having consensual sex but if they don't know the difference between right and wrong at the age of 14, then maybe a spell in the slammer will educate them. Most folks would agree - so what? Most folks would agree with all sorts of stupid and cruel things - if you go on moral things rather than just following the blind prejudice of the heard you take a more balanced view of things. And I think we're getting confused between 'civil rights' - like the right to vote, the right not to be imprisoned and so on - and 'human rights' - like the right not to be tortured, raped, and so on. You lose your civil rights when you're convicted but NOT your human rights. And plenty of victims of robbery DO suffer from lifetime angst and plenty of victims of rape or sexual assault come to terms with it. I had to and i'm still here and fighting. Now let's add to the mix the fact that in the US there are particular idiocies because the 'age of consent' varies from state to state. For instance, in Louisiana it's 17 and in California 18 so a 17-year old girl from New Orleans could have totally consensual sex with an 18-year old from Los Angeles and yet her could still be convicted as a sex offender because she wasn't of legal age in California. For what it's worth I think the age needs to be lowered to about 15 or maybe even 14 but certainly it's yet another example of how bad law isn't even consistent.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:24:06 GMT
Toby comments.:- Most folk would agree that when you sexually assault children then you lose your rights. You lose your right to freedom for a start when convicted, you lose the right to a Family life etc. etc. Unlike a simple robbery which does not induce lifelong angst in the victim, sexual assault leaves victims mentally and emotionally scarred. Because of this I am in favour of maximum penalties for sex offenders. I note the oft-quoted comment about the two 14 year olds having consensual sex but if they don't know the difference between right and wrong at the age of 14, then maybe a spell in the slammer will educate them. NO No no Toby it's not the 14 year olds who have committed an offence or done anything wrong ,, it's the adult that gets charged with the offence Not the Child!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:25:14 GMT
. Two 14-year olds for instance haveing consensual sex get lumped in the same bracket as the likes of Savile which is insane and unjust. Any kind of sentencing that doesn't take account of individual circumstances is just lynch law. No the two 14 year olds are not the sex offenders the adult is! I still think sex offenders should loose their Human Rights.
|
|