The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Other Tulsa Discussion => Topic started by: aRisler on December 02, 2008, 04:30:08 PM

Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: aRisler on December 02, 2008, 04:30:08 PM
If you have no sympathy for others, who will have sympathy for you?  Are you a perfect person?  Have you ever made a mistake?  How old were you when you first had sex and how old was your partner?  Were you married?  "When you judge another, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the same things." Romans 2:1.
By today's laws almost EVERONE would be a sex offender. This is what happens when the government attempts to govern morality and parenting.  Is there any wonder why, for the first time in America, 1 in 100 people are behind bars.  I do not condone rape or pedophiles. My heart goes out to these real victims.  But young people are far more likely to become a victim of these ridiculous new laws that do much more harm than good.  Finding the truly dangerous types on the current system is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Forgive them, because if you cannot forgive, how can you be forgiven?  Give them an opportunity to rebuild your trust.  Never take your own vengeance.
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: RecycleMichael on December 02, 2008, 04:44:46 PM
I had some stone issues earlier this year. I had two surgeries to remove gall stones, kidney stones and I think even flint stones.

I am now stone-free.

Let him without stones cast the first sin.
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: Porky on December 02, 2008, 07:44:32 PM
The first time I got stone was in January of 1970 when I went to a Grand Funk Concert, in Minneapolis.

I actually enjoyed it, so feel free to throw it my way.

Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: zstyles on December 02, 2008, 08:50:07 PM
I have never had a stone..whats it like..I always wondered about that...hrmmmmm...
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: Ed W on December 02, 2008, 09:02:53 PM
Hand casts stone afar
Ripples spread across the pond
The fish threw it back
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: RecycleMichael on December 02, 2008, 09:27:59 PM
"Under every stone lurks a politician."

Aristophanes (450 BC - 388 BC)
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: MSLGWCEO on December 14, 2008, 11:49:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by aRisler

If you have no sympathy for others, who will have sympathy for you?  Are you a perfect person?  Have you ever made a mistake?  How old were you when you first had sex and how old was your partner?  Were you married?  "When you judge another, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the same things." Romans 2:1.
By today's laws almost EVERONE would be a sex offender. This is what happens when the government attempts to govern morality and parenting.  Is there any wonder why, for the first time in America, 1 in 100 people are behind bars.  I do not condone rape or pedophiles. My heart goes out to these real victims.  But young people are far more likely to become a victim of these ridiculous new laws that do much more harm than good.  Finding the truly dangerous types on the current system is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Forgive them, because if you cannot forgive, how can you be forgiven?  Give them an opportunity to rebuild your trust.  Never take your own vengeance.







New Study released last week.  


The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released a report yesterday stating that   According to BJS:

http://cfcoklahoma.com/forum/index.php?action=recent in 2007 one in every 31 adults in the United States was incarcerated or under criminal justice supervision.

Oklahoma leads in numbers of those incarcerated in prisons and on parole/probation. We also have the highest number of women in said system as well. We really need to begin demanding programs for rehabilitation as many crimes are due to alcohol, drugs etc. and locking these folks up on mandatory sentences is costly and ineffective towards rehabilitation. Can anyone say but by the grace of God, there go I.
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: RecycleMichael on December 15, 2008, 07:49:32 AM
I try to obey the law...
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: MSLGWCEO on December 15, 2008, 08:42:27 AM
In answer to aRisler statement, " Finding the truly dangerous types on the current system is like looking for a needle in a haystack."

While nothing is 100 percent in this world, we do know who the most dangerous is. Those who did not know their victim, the violent and the repeat offender. Once you single them out in particular, the vast majority of offenders never, ever repeat another sex crime.

My opinion is that a repeat offender should be locked up for a very long time. However, I also must say, it depends upon the severity of the crime. For instance, if he/she were to receive a photo of a minor "unsolicited" in his e-mail or cell phone, that should not be a major deal. Anyone can "set an individual up" for prosecution of child porn just by sending someone such a photo and the youth of today are sending all kinds of photos of themselves, which gets distributed far and wide.

But yes, we can know and make sense out of the registry, IF we go to individual risk assessment.
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: TeeDub on December 15, 2008, 09:00:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by MSLGWCEO

For instance, if he/she were to receive a photo of a minor "unsolicited" in his e-mail or cell phone, that should not be a major deal. Anyone can "set an individual up" for prosecution of child porn just by sending someone such a photo and the youth of today are sending all kinds of photos of themselves, which gets distributed far and wide.



Set an individual up?   Right...

The internet is not nearly as anonymous as most people want it to be.  

If you want to start releasing criminals, how about non-violent drug offenders (you know, college kids with pot, etc.) and keep the people who want to diddle little kids in jail.
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: sgrizzle on December 15, 2008, 01:26:48 PM
I should try that out. Everyone send me your cell phone number and I'll see if I can get you convicted of Child Porn charges.

Really? Show me how many people are convicted on Child Porn charges who had one photo...
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: nathanm on December 15, 2008, 02:35:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub


Set an individual up?   Right...

The internet is not nearly as anonymous as most people want it to be.  


Your second statement is squarely at odds with the first.
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: TeeDub on December 15, 2008, 04:46:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm


Your second statement is squarely at odds with the first.



The intent was to say that it would be difficult to actually set someone up because the internet is not nearly as anonymous as people think it is/want it to be.  

Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: nathanm on December 16, 2008, 01:11:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub

quote:
Originally posted by nathanm


Your second statement is squarely at odds with the first.



The intent was to say that it would be difficult to actually set someone up because the internet is not nearly as anonymous as people think it is/want it to be.  


Well, part of the problem is that no matter how child pornography ends up in your possession, and whether or not you are aware of its existence you are criminally liable for having it.

Say I knew of an exploit in Snitz..it would be trivial for me (if I knew of sites where one could obtain child porn) to make it so everyone who uses the TulsaNow forums ends up with kiddie porn on their computer. Yes, it would only be (barring your running a browser with a security vulnerability) in the browser's cache, but people have been convicted for just that. Images only found in the cache and nowhere else on the PC.

There are thousands if not millions of web sites out there that are vulnerable to cross site scripting attacks which can allow an attacker to make any content they wish appear to originate from that trusted site without even having to attack the site itself, just con you into following a particular link to said trusted site. Say a referral to Amazon from some page about books. (if amazon still has XSS vulnerabilities on their site)

Now the whole 'send so-and-so a multimedia message to their phone with kiddie porn in it' wouldn't be as easily accomplished, although many providers do have email-to-multimedia gateways, so someone who could forge an email's origin could in fact do that.
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: TeeDub on December 16, 2008, 09:19:57 AM

Yes,

If I had kiddy porn on my computer, I would be criminally liable for having it.

Just like if I had cocaine in my car.

The burden of proof would land squarely on my shoulders.

If I could show the email it originated from, I would imagine that would help my case.

No?
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: patric on December 17, 2008, 12:47:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
If I could show the email it originated from, I would imagine that would help my case.


I think what he was trying to say is that if the sender ID was spoofed (as in the case of 99% of the spam we get) you would not be able to easily trace the origin.

If that were practical, we would have a lot less spam in the world.
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: TeeDub on December 18, 2008, 09:01:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by patric

quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
If I could show the email it originated from, I would imagine that would help my case.


I think what he was trying to say is that if the sender ID was spoofed (as in the case of 99% of the spam we get) you would not be able to easily trace the origin.

If that were practical, we would have a lot less spam in the world.




If sufficient resources were spent, and there were ongoing instances of the email, the source could be found.  (They won't do it for you or I, but given enough reason, they could find the perpetrator.)
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: patric on December 18, 2008, 11:05:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub

quote:
Originally posted by patric

quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
If I could show the email it originated from, I would imagine that would help my case.


I think what he was trying to say is that if the sender ID was spoofed (as in the case of 99% of the spam we get) you would not be able to easily trace the origin.

If that were practical, we would have a lot less spam in the world.




If sufficient resources were spent, and there were ongoing instances of the email, the source could be found.  (They won't do it for you or I, but given enough reason, they could find the perpetrator.)


I agree with your point.  If I had boatloads of tax money at my fingertips I could make things happen, too, but the people that could do that dont always have the purest motives or the interests of the average person in mind.
Given that, it's easier to just slaughter the small prey that got caught in a trap than hunt down a real predator when one kill is as good as another.
Title: No Sympathy for Sex Offenders
Post by: MSLGWCEO on December 23, 2008, 05:59:05 PM
Hello. Thought I would stop by to say hello.

Working on my site with upgrades for the forum and a new template for the main, with all the bells and jangles.

Even have the Governors picture up. I plan on putting a few law makers pictures up also.

Later