Even though, parents and communities are against having double and triple sex offenders living in their neighborhoods, it's pretty impossible to do anything about them without having congress pass a law. So basically, the law will state that multiple sex offenders will not be able to live within a certain footage of school grounds and wherever children are. However, do you all agree with this statment? Should sex offenders be banned from living near schools and "children infested" neighborhoods?

--- i think they should be closely monitored my the government, because since they've done it twice or three times already after they were convicted and put out of jail, what makes them think they won't do it again?

That depends on what you mean by a "sex offender". You mean a rapist? Or do you mean someone who had consensual homosexual relations? That was illegal in Texas and a few other states until last year.

"Sex offender" is way too broad of a category. I'd have a problem with rapists and kidnappers trafficking schools; I wouldn't have a problem with people who watch porn or homosexuals doing so.

We shoudl abolish all these sex offender shield laws that help corrupt our judicial system. If someone steals from you, kidnaps you, assaults you, etc., and you press charges, the defense has the right to confront you, and cross-examine you. But if you report a rape, in some states, you're immune from being cross-examined. That, in my opinion, allows for way too much abuse.

Depends
I think first time sex offenders should be given another chance
After that the whole stay away thing should come in because if they've done it repeadedly (spelling -_-) then they could do it again. If it's the first time, maybe he/she learned from his or her mistakes.

Rapists who don't learn their lesson the first time deserve the death penalty.

They torment poor innocent kids. Hell yes they should be in 15435315743512 miles away from schools. Seriously. If they are going to have their urges, and GOD KNOWS everyone who does something like that thinks about doing it again, then seriously. Don't let them.

They're even coming out with these ankle braclet things. It's too easy to TAKE IT OFF.

We have to clarify what a sex offender is first. There's different kinds of sex offenders; and they should be treated differently.

Your right too. But I agree with the law that was passed.

mmhmm but how would you treat those who have done it over and over again? because there really isn't a law saying they can't live here or there

My point is, I don't mind someone who was convicted of watching child porn in his basement in my neighborhood. He only poses a threat to himself. As long as he hasn't abducted any children or anything, he should have the same right to live where he pleases as anyone else. It's silly to put him and a serial rapist in the same category.

if congress were to impose these sorts of restrictions, they would undermine the whole point of prison (it's all too commonly forgotten that prison is not to punish, but to help deter the offender from recommitting the crime and rehabilatating them.)

i believe that once someone serves their sentence, they are clean, and i would not have a problem living next door to a known, convicted, and imprisoned rapist (so long as i wasnt in prison too )

serial child rapists deserve death penalty. tormenting these innocent children and corrupting their young minds. or atleast make an island and just put all rapists on it

they already did that, it's called australia.

just kiddin!

I think the first time a person is caught for a sex offense such as rape, or child rape. They need to be killed, there's no help/use for them. I am sure my license plate was made by one, but I don't care.

BTE, ComradeRed you are awsum. All power to the motherland.

since when were homosexuals categorized (sp?) as SEX OFFENDERS? my god. and yes, of course sex offenders that have been tried for molesting/raping children should have to live X distance away from certain areas.

and, comrade, if you're saying that you wouldn't mind living next to someone that has the ability to abduct/molest a child, what sense is that? there will always be the first time that a potential sex offender abuses children. you never know when he/she might strike.

i think that there is an obvious answer to the whole multiple sex offender thing. TAKE AWAY THE URGE. i mean come on. if someone is an alcoholic then dont get them around beer....if someone rapes kids or adults....keep them away from kids/adults. i hope that our court system would have enough sense to realize this.

Homosexuality was a sex crime in Texas and some other states until the Supreme Court ruled that a state did not have the right to pass a law against homosexuality in Lawrence v. Kennedy two years ago.

Did I say that? I said I don't mind living with someone who was caught watching child porn in their basement. There's a HUGE difference between someone who feels the need to jack off to kiddie porn and someone who is actually a violent person (an abductor, a rapist, etc.) "Sex offender" puts them both in the same category, when in actuality, they are as different as an honest prostitute (who engages in illegal, but harmless activity for money) and a bank robber (who engages in violence for money).

There are all sorts of sex crimes that are really perversions, not violent acts--bestiality, child porn, etc. Those kinds of people should have the same rights as the rest of us; it's the violent people like rapists that should have to live with restricted freedoms.

killed? really?

not all rapists are insane. many are help...able.

also, whilst it must be a horrific experience to go through, there are far worse things than being raped. a victim of rape will often be able to work past the ordeal, and live a normal life. therefore, i cannot see that a first time rapist should be executed. perhaps if they are a repeat offender then execution could be considered.


anyhow, back to the main topic - i really do hold a lot of faith in the prison system. i think that pretty much anybody is capable of committing a crime, but just because someone has before does not indicate that they will repeat the offence.

if they do it again after they get out of jail, then they should be put back in or be monitored, depending on what they did.

It was discovered that a one time sex offender was living next door to one of my friends (I don't know what the actual charge was) and since this was very close to the middle school and the offense somehow involved minors, he was essentially run out of the area by concerned parents to the point where police got involved and it made the news. Now, I understand wanting not to have a sex offender living across the street from the middle school, but I don't think it was necessary to run him off like that. He'd lived there for years without ever causing trouble (as far as I'm aware) so it seems ridiculous to suddenly jump to conclusions based on things that happened in the past. I do think he deserved more of a chance than that.

Taking care of rapists easy,1 time jail,2nd time castration 3rd time you really don't wanna know

0.o just like last thursday, everyone in my school got a note saying that a sex offender moved into the neighborhood.

they are closely monitored. the govt checks up on them and requires them to register or something once a year.

i don't think that they should be treated like an outcast, i mean they did something wrong, spend their time in jail already, and now has a title 'sex offender' branded on themselves. but your title says 2 times the sex offence so he should be closely monitored by the gov't, and maybe placed somewhere where there aren't alot of children

personally i think all sex-offenders dont deserve to live.. they're just as bad as murders imo

i think its really stupid giving these people another chance because some of them actually commit another sex crime after being paroled.. you think all those people bitching about the rights of a sex offender (those for giving them a 2nd chance), will think the same if it was their little girl that was the victim?? i dont think so...

This is blown way out of proportion. The Romans--one of the greatest civilizations in history--was founded on rape (Look up the Rape of the Sabines). Without rape, there would have been no Rome, and thus no classical European civilization, and no United States.

Not that I'm saying rape is a good thing, but to equate it to murder is downright silly. When you rape someone, you take a part of their life, but when you murder them you take the whole thing.

I think that this all depends on the crime like when an "offender" moved onto my street you get this paper of there face and what they did. My guy not only raped his family but a few other kids ny age. Now tell me do I get the right to be scared of or not

It all depends on who your talking about and how serious was the crime