Thread: Working with a sex offender, could you do it?
View Single Post
Unread 12 Jul 2006, 08:57   #27
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Working with a sex offender, could you do it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SYMM
I'm still a bit confused. I'm assuming that you'd be more willing to help the former?
Well I'm not particularly interested in helping anyone to be honest; if people are likely to violate the rights of others then they shouldnt be let out of prison, and if they arent, then these sort of programs seem like a waste of time. To be honest, I find the Guardian article quite troubling because it seems to essentially be suggesting that criminals who have a high-risk of reoffending should be let out of prison so that others can relieve their middle-class/Christian guilt by doing some babysitting.

The distinction is that a lot (perhaps most) 'sex offenders' shouldnt be forced into programs like this in the first place, because despite tabloid hysteria, the vast majority of sex offences are either non-crimes in which no rights are violated, or crimes that are on the same level as (eg) assault. I have sympathy with a lot of sex-offenders due to the fact they are getting screwed over by an authoritarian government and a retarded populace, and would obviously treat them a lot more favourably than someone who has molested a 2 year old girl.

Quote:
Normally, I'd agree, but I think that within the context of the article, it was fairly evident what was meant.
Well I still dont know who qualifies for this program. Is it just people who have molested pre-pubescent children? Or does it include those that have downloaded photos of children without actually molesting anyone? How about adults who have slept with 15 year old girls? Businessmen who grabbed their secretaries boobs on a night out? None of the articles actually say what sort of crimes the 'sex offenders' have committed, so I'm not sure why you think it was evident.

Anyway, given that I think the sex offender register should be abolished, I'm not likely to support programs that involve treating 'sex offenders' differently from all other criminals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
Also, rape is any form of sex that isn't consentual.
This doesnt really get us anywhere because the whole argument is over what constitutes consent. The false consciousness induced by patriarchal society makes it impossible for any womyn to rationally consent to sex hence all intercourse is rape, and so on.
Last edited by Nodrog; 12 Jul 2006 at 09:11.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote