• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

News Human Rights For Sex Offenders

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree every person has rights, but sex offenders who have re-offended should be locked up forever. They should never be given another opportunity to ruin someone's life.

And I agree - when in prison they should all be put together. I don't care what they do to each other, they deserve it.

The legal system is a joke (I know I've been there) when it comes to sex offenders, rapists, child abusers.

I worked for local council for 15 years, housing people and inevitably sex offenders coming out of prison. It was the hardest part of my job, having to be professional, but I was. What upset me most was they had more support than women coming from serious domestic violence situations. How in the hell is that right, or fair.

Seems that criminals have more Human Rights than the victims.
 
It's okay to feel this moral dilemma. You wouldn't be human if you didn't. I'm not going to discuss what is right or wrong for these prisoners, because I don't believe that is really what you need to hear.

Thank you for understanding the point of my original post. I "left" this thread because it took a direction I hadn't intended and didn't like. I think I wasn't clear enough about my reason for posting, and I've learnt something from that.

What you talk about is exactly what I meant. It's a moral conflict and I didn't know how to deal with it. I'm no longer in that job and that's a big relief, although I'm still wondering about my chances of finding another job in a different sector, given that's my experience.

Having some distance from it now, I'm starting to see that in my case purely having to follow protocol and being unable to make any decisions myself was making it worse. It's like, if I saw a member of staff treating their job as a joke and I wasn't their manager, that would cause more resentment in me than if I was their manager and could address the issue myself. I'd treat the member of staff fairly and appropriately, but I'd be taking action and making decisions directly to set boundaries and challenge their behaviour. I felt similarly dealing with offenders but not in a management role. Not being able to decide my own response made me feel powerless and, given my history, that in itself is something I find hard to deal with.

I'm sorry that both you and Shellbell have had to deal with issues at work like the ones you describe. I'm grateful to you both for sharing them, though, because it's helping me to understand that in my case this is a key part of the issue. It's not only that I believe in human rights, and the conflict that brings up. It's also that I have no say in how that's implemented. Perhaps that's a good thing because it's difficult for me to be objective. Perhaps it would be a good thing if more people deciding the implementation had a more realistic view - I've worked with some realistic offender managers and some who were so attached to the ideology of human rights they couldn't seem to see anything else.

Really, I suppose I was looking for a realistic balance - in my own mind and in offender management.

On which note, I think I'll ask if this thread can be closed. Perhaps administrators wouldn't do that, but I'll ask anyway.
 
Revisiting this thread, I wonder if this is something that any of us could honestly examine objectively?

I mean, my abuser...? Well, I don't wish her ill will in that I want her to be raped or tortured or anything like that. Yes, I'd like to see her punished, but that won't happen in my lifetime, at least not because of what she did to me. In a way I've let it go. It's not about retribution. My parents, on the other hand, want her to die a thousand horrible deaths.

But then I think of what happened to my aunt. I want to find those rat-b@astards who are rotting in jail and rip their gonads off personally.

So "A" vs "B" makes me realize that I'm too close too see things from a purely objective point of view. I know the hell that I live and I don't wish that on anybody. Having said that, I don't think its a violation of human rights to strip someone of their freedom. Throw 'em in jail and lose the key.

And then there are those "mistakes" such as putting Jeffrey Dhamer in general population. The sort of "mistake" that was no mistake at all.
 
Hmmm.

Personally, I think that those who take away human rights should be stripped of their freedom, nothing else.

I've been raped, beaten, assaulted, I was fortunate enough to be drugged by my rapists before they had a go at me, so I guess that's a blessing.

Taking away any aspect of someone's human rights should result in the loss of the most important human right of all, freedom.
Put them to work in a prison kitchen or factory, but don't give them their freedom.
Their punishment should last as long as the effects of their actions.
 
I would just like to say on this thread, I will be upfront and if anyone does not like it, well I guess I am taking a chance, but any ways, I come from being abused in every way by my dad from babyhood to about age 7, I do not remember any of it. Unfortunately my deep deep denial did send me to prison for a sex crime. After serving 3 years, I did go through intense treatment for 2 years, my PO and my treatment provider were very strict with me, but they did see the desire to change and kept working with me to change my whole way of thinking and crack the deep denial I had. I am very thankful for this, talking about the details of my crime/past make me very uneasy in my stomach.

Along side this, I have tried to attend to church to and many times I got rejected, I understand that we need to protect the minors of the church, which I am fully behind that, but also I believe we need to find a way to allow sex offenders in to help them not offend again. Also being those shoes and for the ones who work with them to understand them, you can see quickly who would be ok to let in the church setting and not.
 
they did see the desire to change and kept working with me to change my whole way of thinking and crack the deep denial I had.
Newmie, you did the crime, you did the time and you are trying to change. You're also one of those who became part of the abuse cycle, in that you were abused and then did exactly what was done to you.

If you're changing to better who you are as a person, then that is excellent and well done. Many don't... and many don't get punished for their crimes either... and deny their actions and keep on reoffending, which is a huge issue.

Our mistakes made are just that, it's what you want to do about them and then about yourself that matters.

You should also differentiate from the rights of those in jail which this thread discusses... would my answer change from the last page? No. If you make it out and want to change... then that is the hope and desired goal.
 
Objectively, I believe in justice for all.

Emotionally, however, things are more cloudy. I have sympathy for those who've committed such crimes, because they are usually victims themselves, whose trauma was severe enough to limit their ability to control their own acting-out.

However, when I think of someone like Jerry Sandusky, and what he did, I don't think I'd shed a tear if they fed him, or others like him, to the lions.
 
I'm not sure why I'm posting this, or what I want from replies (if there are any).


When laws are changed to deliberately continue ruining someone's life, or the assumption is made that one has become a threat to society, based only on their past, with the assistance of amended laws, it is not only constitutionally offensive, but also highly prejudicial and defamation of one's character, ruining the little bit of good reputation one would have left. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S.C. states that "no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offence.

It is clearly stated in the second sentence of our Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Unalienable rights are fixed rights given to us by our Creator rather than by government. Unalienable rights are absolute rights - showing that they are absolute because they came from him who is absolute, and they were, are, and always will be, because the Giver of those rights - "Creator" - was, is, and always will be.

Because we are "endowed" with them, the rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity. In other words, the government did not give them and therefore cannot take them away, but the government still strains at ways to suppress them.

To protect fundamental, individual rights, James Madison helped include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The intent was to remove them from government's reach. Unalienable rights, explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, include "the right to be secure in one's own property and protection from cruel and unusual punishment."

Furthermore, law is a respecter of persons if it treats persons differently because of their immutable status or belief. The law is not a respecter of persons if it treats persons differently on the basis of their acts or conduct. The law looks to what a person does, not who they are. Those who deny the rule of equality or its origins in the law of God, or who argue that equality is subject to changing cultural or social conditions, or who twist the meaning of equality to require government mandated quotas, do so in contravention of the principle of equality.

Title 18, Section 242 of the U.S.C. makes it a crime [a felony] for "whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to willfully subject any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

Referring to the Declaration of Independence, President Abraham Lincoln affirmed that "the United States was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that 'all men are created equal'." Lincoln realized that the rule of equality applied to all men and nations, without regard to the age in which they lived, their location on the globe, or the circumstances of history which surrounded them. Therefore, infringement of one's Individual rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are precluded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay. This is the only time I shall show a thread without compassion. These offenders can rot. I have no remorse stating this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Common Sensei joined just to leave that response. One post, and I get the feeling he's neither a sufferer or a supporter. Sort of an odd response as this is an opinion thread. But, I will say this....his argument falls apart at the end when he discusses the infringement on liberty. Uhm, liberty IS freedom and these prisoners don't have freedom. Hence, the argument falls apart.
 
I think Common Sensei joined just to leave that response. One post, and I get the feeling he's neither a sufferer or a supporter. Sort of an odd response as this is an opinion thread. But, I will say this....his argument falls apart at the end when he discusses the infringement on liberty. Uhm, liberty IS freedom and these prisoners don't have freedom. Hence, the argument falls apart.

I don't know the reason that Common Sensei joined the forum, neither does anybody else. I was so happy to find his words of fact and reason on this forum. I am appaled that so many citizens of US have a hysterical child-like belief about people accused of sex offenses. A sex offense can be one of a multitude of things. Many people who are convicted and sent to prison were wrongfully convicted, victims of an over zealous prosecutor who wishes for rel-election and therefore prosecutes every man possible for this crime. Many "sex offenders" only had child porn on their computer. Some sex offenders were 19 years old and slept with a girl who said she was 17 but was only 14. It is impossible for me to understand the lust for torture that I see posted on the internet. I see so many false statements spoken with the air of certainty such as "everyone knows the recidivism rate for sex offenders is higher than any other crime."

Studies I know of report the contrary. I see statements referring to "sex offenders" as though there were a certain kind of human being who roams around, hiding behind bushes and jumps out and grabs and tortures little children. There are a few pathetic people who have done that and the news media has made it sound like that is what a sex offender is, when that is actually a rare occurence. Why do some people want to make it so simple, why do they want to hate and torture? Our laws for sex offenders is actually unconstitutional just like Common Sense was trying to point out. Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto abounds. I have a loved one who was accused and due to his mental illness he was no match for an evil prosecutor. He has a 24 year sentence, the rest of his life probably, and some people want him to spend that 24 years being tortured? He is one case, the variety of stories are hundreds of thousands. This is not a simple subject, "sex offenders." And yet, I see all these hateful attitudes of people who want to make it simple, harsh, and cruel, and in order to do that, they have to pretend that there is only one kind of a person who is ever accused and convicted of a sex crime. I also hate the generalizations of the "victims." Many people write that the victim suffers forever. That is propaganda. Some victims may suffer forever.....SOME....The girl who accused my loved one has all the appearances of living an extremely happy successful life.
 
Availability of information today makes many things sound worse than they are, however; some facets of society are simply that bad that even rare is still bad enough to warrant any media attention, and child abuse is one of those. No child should be sexually abused, beaten to a pulp or other such misgiving. It doesn't matter how you desire to wrap it, but no child should endure such misgivings.

An adults basic role in life is to protect children and ensure they are armed and ready for adulthood. Adulthood is a different kettle of fish, and is more a war between selves than one of maturity and acceptance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top