Megan's Law

B

browneyedgirl9285

New member
That's now how it was in the case of Megan Kanka, who the law was named after.



Irrelevant. No matter how rare they are, predators do exist and they do pose a threat to your children. If there is a predator living in your neighborhood, I'm sure you'd like to know about them. Just answer this, if there's a child predator living in your neighborhood, would you like to know about them so you could warn your children to stay away? Or would you rather leave it up to police, who will not warn your children and cannot react until after a crime has been committed?

I wonder if your views would change if your child was molested by a serial rapist living across the street from you...



No, Bennett. It's you who has the false sense of security. For the fiftieth time, the police aren't meant to protect you. Even if they're monitoring a criminal, an arrest can only be made after a crime has been committed.

Anyhow, that is true. But making them known in their home area is better than leaving parents ignorant.

I can garuntee you that Megan's law does a thousand times more to prevent crimes than police do. It informs you, the guardian, that there's a sex offender living in your neighborhood.



First, the belief of American mob rule is nothing but UK propaganda. It's utter bull####. Here in the US, we have police, a court system, laws, and penalties for people who break those laws, just like in the UK. No more people are victims of vigilantism in the US than in the UK, so get those ideas out of your head.

Once again, police aren't meant to protect you. They're meant to arrest people after a crime is committed.



How often is often? Can you prove that their innocence after they were found guilty in a court of law, which is the only way you can end up on Megan's list?



You're still assuming that police are meant to protect you. They're not.

Look, Jo, from what I've seen most of you UK people are sheep; you believe whatever the government tells you to believe. In this case, the government is telling you that you're safer from sex offenders just becuase the police are prepared to arrest them after they commit another sex crime.

Wouldn't you say it's better to prevent a sex crime than it to arrest a sex offender after it's too late? Knowledge can do this; police monitoring can't.
 
I'm not really expecting there to be much of a discussion here. But as far as I know, there is one person on this forum (Who is extremely anti-gun, I might add. You who frequent the GC forum know that he's a complete retard.) who believe that Megan's law violates the rights of a sex offender. I don't care really. The rapist didn't care much about his victim's rights, so why should we care about the rights of the rapist?
 
Well whoever voted it's bad, remember who the law was named after: Megan Kanka, the seven year old girl who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by Jesse Timmendequas, who had quite a history of violent sex offences. I bet her parent's would've liked to know of Timmendequas' dark history before it was too late, but I guess some people think that would've violated his rights. :(
 
You're greatly exagerrating how we react to child predators.

If you see your child talking to a guy who you know is a child predator, wouldn't you at least watch to make sure they don't try anything?

If you call that paranoia, you're a terrible parent.
 
Generally if someone is regularly approaching kiRAB without a good reason, someone will mention it to the local police community support officer and they'll keep an eye out.

Mobs in Britain have mistakenly gone after paediatricians because they can't tell the differenece between the worRAB paediatrician and paedophile. If the police identified convicted sex offenders in the UK then they would be driven from their homes and be totally unmonitored, or they would wind up dead in an alley somewhere. I'm not aware of a single case where a released child sex offender has assaulted a child out and about in their community. Not to say there aren't any such cases, but there certainly aren't many.

We have sentences for sex offenders, they may not be harsh enough, but that's another discussion. Even if they are not, it doesn't mean we should condone extra-judicial punishments that will result from such a law.
 
I don't know all the ins and outs of Megan's law. I know its the rule that sex offenders have to register where ever they live. I can only assume that it has been found to be constitutional (much like felons losing the right to vote and own firearms). I believe that the nature of pedophilia is that it is a compulsion of which many cannot be cured. That being the case, I must agree with the law. However, (and again I'm not overly familiar) strong measures must be taken to ensure that the wrong people should not fall under its auspices (I had a friend that almost became a 'sex offender' because a cop caught him peeing on a tree).
 
I'm not talking about who enRAB up on Megan's list, I'm talking about wether or not real sex offenders found guilty in court should end up on the list. Some people do whine and say sex offenders are publicly humiliated by being put on a website. I think they should've thought about that before they raped a seven year old girl.
 
Humm... You say that the passage of a law that allows parents the option of finding out if sexual predators live in the area will cause children to have worse lives and I'm the one drawing faulty comparisons? How about faulty conclusions using faulty logic? And who says that parents must make their children into neurotic wreaks simply by possessing knowledge concerning who may try to hurt them?
 
It'd be hard to fight FOR the rights of kid rapers that's for sure. These guys do present a clear danger to children and all efforts must be made to protect the kiRAB.
 
This is interesting. In one sentence your saying that citizens in the UK calmly go and find a community support officer when they suspect that there may be a potential pedophile talking up some kid...then a few sentences later the citizens are a mob with torches and pitchforks casing pediatricians with tar and feathers. Wow.

Now as to ...released sex offenders assaulting kiRAB after being released from jail? Are you kidding me? That's the entire impetus behind Megan's law..... The laws are named for Megan Kanka. She was 7 years old when a twice-convicted sex offender who lived near her home raped and killed her in 1994. I know in the UK they're even considering chemical castration for the worst sex offenders. And its not about retribution...its about saving a kid from getting raped. I swear, I think your liberal tendencies cloud your judgment sometimes....
 
NO! Ethmi there is no exaggerating when it comes to child predators,you keep your kiRAB away from them period!

You see your child talking to a guy you know is one,at least watch and see?
Get off that....they did it once they WILL do it again.

If your not paranoid to a point your the bad parent.And why the hell they let some evil thing like that out of prison is a good question,or a questionable
lack of good judgment,things like that need exterminated or castrated:angry::angry:.
 
But there is at least one person who actually gives a rat's ass about the rights of a rapist who uses this forum. You might recognize him as the guy who makes the emotional, hilariously misinformed claims on the GC forum. Even some of the anti-gun people on there think he's a complete dumbass.

Actually, his firm position against Megan's law makes me wonder why he's so anti-gun.
 
Since ALL rights are societial constructs they can be granted and removed. The difficulties of giving or removing them aren't germain to this discussion.

Suffice to say, since they can be removed, it is possible to have their removal be part of the conditions of punishment for a member of the society who violates it's rules.

Rights to vote, bear arms, live or anything else can be removed if those who have the power to grant or remove rights so choses.

It is abundantly clear that the restrictions of Megans Law were agreed upon by those in power and consent given by the majority. So, they stand.

Any individual can ALWAYS exercise his/her personal power and go against what society (as a whole) desires...but, they do so at the risk or retribution.
Most criminals already know about this fact.
Having violated societial rules and been caught and punished by society.

It's all about risk vs reward.

Want to rape some kiRAB...high risk there. Hefty punishments.
 
The reason police in the UK have shied away from a similar law is that they expect it to make it more difficult to monitor sex offenders as they will be tempted to disappear altogether, the risk of vigilantism being what it is. Unmonitored sex offenders are a far bigger danger than monitored ones unknown to parents.

And yes, we do have to look out for the rights of sex offenders, as it's only by ensuring that the rights of people that everyone despises are protected that I can protect my own.
 
I believe they should greatly increase the prison terms for predators. Additionally, there should be a voluntary program for chemical castration if they want to get out early on parole.
 
Yes very greatly,voluntary?if they ever want out it should be mandatory,
chemical?as long as they drop off.
But they still need monitored and kept absolute track of.:angry:
 
I don't think you could constitutionally make it mandatory. However, by getting them to do it voluntarily (other wise their sentence would be so long that they'd be soooo old that their junk wouldn't work when they got out anyway).





Most definitely!
Click to expand...
 
Well that's the urban legend...

A single paediatrician had "paedo" painted onto their house by, most likely, a single person, with unknown motivations.

As far as I've heard it only ever happened one time, there was no evidence it was a "mob", and no one knows whether they genuinely made such an error or they had some other motivation.
 
Back
Top