Sex offenders in Greensboro
I found the site www.mapsexoffenders.com, and I ran a search to see how many sex offenders were around UNCG.
Disgusting. I don't care if this is above or below average. There is an appropriate punishment for sex offenders, and it isn't parole.
EDIT: After I zoomed in on the map I realized that a lot of those red marks are overlapping. Apparently they move in packs.
Disgusting. I don't care if this is above or below average. There is an appropriate punishment for sex offenders, and it isn't parole.
EDIT: After I zoomed in on the map I realized that a lot of those red marks are overlapping. Apparently they move in packs.
posted by Luke McIntyre at 8/05/2006 12:50:00 AM
20 Comments:
What is your proposal for female sex offenders?
I didn't specify that castration was only for male sex offenders.
Tthe word castration typically means the removal of the testes. Sometimes it is used to describe the removal of the ovaries. Is that your prescription for female sex offenders? Removal of the ovaries?
I've always understood female castration to refer to removal of the clitoris, thereby reducing the amount of sexual pleasure the woman can feel. In the case of judicial castration, it would be an appropriate and safe medical procedure that removes the female sex offender's desire or capability to commit sexual acts.
My problem with the sex offender registry (to the degree that I have any problem with the sex offender registry) is that maps like these - which we often see in the media without an accompanying list or proper explanation - don't tell you what "type" of sex offender you're looking at.
Most of the people in the registry deserve to be there. But in the course of reporting on related things I've spoken to people who are on the sex offender registry because they've had sex in public, because they got drunk and urinated in an alley when they couldn't find a bathroom, because they were charged with sexual "crimes against nature" (read: homosexual acts and/or sodomy) for consensual sex acts and pleaded guilty because they wanted the whole thing over quickly and quietly, because they whipped it out in a locker room and the guy who was flirting with them seconds earlier turned out to be a cop, etc, etc, etc.
The registry itself is a good tool, a good idea. I've used it in stories, I've used it for practical things. But I do think there are some people who are on it not for being sexual predators but because they enjoy consensual sex acts that mainstream society considers to be deviant and/or the people prosecuting these things are looking to bust fags and people into "weird stuff."
It also looks to me like a lot of these little clusters are in some of the cheapest - and least appealing - places in the city.
Hardly any of them in more affluent neighborhoods - presumably because it's a little hard to get a job running a company or open your own dental practice if you're on the state's sex offender registry. There are grocery stores that won't hire sex offenders.
Joe: Good points. I'd also guess that there are a lot of guys on the list because they had consensual sex with their girlfriend in high school who happened to be just a couple years younger than them. "Indecent liberties with a minor" is without a doubt the most common crime I see on the list. Of course, it also tells you the date of the crime and their age, so you can usually tell who got screwed in high school and who was just screwing high schoolers.
There's also the part that tells you whether they are a "predator" or not. These are generally people who have multiple victims or committed offenses against children. In my opinion these people shouldn't even be on the list, because it's a list of people who were released from prison (barring any legislation on mandatory castration, of course).
Removal of the clitoris, eh? Okee dokee, Mr. Talibani.
You said that you have heard female castration referring to removal of the ovaries, I said that I've heard it referring to removal of the clitoris. I then answered your question by saying that the form of female castration I was referencing would be a procedure that removes the female sex offender's desire or capability to commit sexual acts, making it identical to the male procedure. I was not advocating removal of the clitoris, unless that is the appropriate medical procedure. What part are you finding difficult to understand?
And Mr. Talibani is the President of Iraq.
Thinking that removing the clitoris "removes the female sex offender's desire or capability to commit sexual acts, making it identical to the male procedure" is simply moronic. Ignorant. Monumentally stupid.
And yes, you were advocating the removal of the clitoris as the punishment for female sex offenders. But it's okay if you want to stop now and think things through a bit more.
Point out where I said that removing the clitoris is the appropriate punishment. Quote it to me please.
What I actually said was that an appropriate medical procedure (medical meaning that a doctor is involved in this process, see where I'm going with this?) would remove the ability or desire to engage in sex. It could mean removing the clitoris, it could mean removing the ovaries, it could means sewing the vagina shut. Hell if I know, I'm not a doctor (I don't see Dr. Roch in your title either), and I can't tell you the physiological effects of any of those procedures. As far as I know such a procedure doesn't exist.
And I can go further and say that I'm using the word castration simply because it's in common usage, but what I'm referring to specifically is what I've said several times: removing the sex offender's desire or capability to commit sexual acts. For a male it might be removing the testes, it might be a penectomy, or it might be any number of other procedures. It's up for a doctor to decide what the appropriate procedure is, and I readily admit that I don't know enough to make that decision. All I'm saying is that the procedure should be used.
"sewing the vagina shut."
Keep going Luke. I can tell you've put a lot of thought into this.
Since you can't actually respond to my post, instead trying to pretend that an obviously sarcastic comment was serious, I'll assume you're done trying to make whatever point you were trying to make.
Ohhh, you were being sarcastic. I see. So, the question posed 13 comments ago remains unanswered (well, answered, but you don't want to stand by your words). So, I'll ask again: Yyou recommend castration for sex offenders, what is your proposal for female sex offenders?
No, actually I answered it already, you just didn't understand. It's okay, a lot of people get angry when they can't understand things.
"In the case of judicial castration, it would be an appropriate and safe medical procedure that removes the female sex offender's desire or capability to commit sexual acts."
Switch "female" for "male" and that's also my answer for male sex offenders. I ask again, what part are you finding difficult to understand?
I don't have a dog in this fight, really, but I do wonder if castrating someone would really take care of the problem.
Aren't most sex crimes more about power and domination than sexual gratification? Would someone's psychological urge to abuse others sexually really be dimmed by castration?
It seems to me to be more of attaining sexual satisfaction from the power and domination. It's not as if the sex is a simple byproduct, otherwise they'd just be beating people up. But of course, if removing the sexual desire from these people doesn't resolve their need to be a predator then we shouldn't be releasing them at all.
How about leaving it up to the victims and their families to decide what to do to the perpetrators (or any government they may voluntarily live under) rather than the state? It's really no one else's business.
I would say that the public has an interest in the entire judicial process, hence the idea of public trial.
Well, yes. I grossly misstated what I intended. It's not quite the case that it's no one else's business. After all, if the victim of a crime and his/her family takes some action against the perpetrator of the crime, then they're going to have to make their case to the public explaining why they're taking such action. Otherwise, the public won't know whether such action is justified and may consider the victims to be the real danger.
So I do still advocate public trials and so forth; I just think they should happen by any means other than a state.
Post a Comment
<< Home