Pedophiles Electronically Tagged

[Nebulous]

We all know that sex offenders address's, pictures, a description of their offense's, etc can be found on any Megans Law site.

(If you live in California, you can look up your neighborhood here: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/ )



But, should convicted pedophiles be electronically tagged?

So we know where they are at all times?

 

[hotspot]

Well it isn't a bad idea.

 

[IcarusForde]

Clarification: The thread title says sex offenders, the OP says pedophiles, which one?



In pedophiles case, yes. Sex offenders, unless repeat, no.

 

[Nebulous]

pedophiles are sex offenders.

 

[Grailknight]

Not all pedophiles are sex offenders.

Not all sex offenders are pedophiles.



I'm against electronically tagging anyone against their will. It's about as big of a violation of privacy as you can get. Plus, what use would it have? It wouldn't help prevent sex crimes, just solve them. But seeing as they're already known sex offenders, solving crimes by DNA comparison is just as easy.

 

[Jazzy]

Free national US search for registered sex offenders. Map registered sex offenders to see who lives in your area.



http://www.familywatchdog.us/



Just type in YOUR address in the find offenders box. I have 14 living within minutes from me!

Should convicted pedophiles be electronically tagged? My opinion is no because who's going to enforce their whereabouts? These are people who may or may not be repeat offenders. I'm just happy I have a resource as in the link above to know where they are.



Just to clarify: A sex offender (also sexual offender, sex abuser, or sexual abuser) is a person who committed a sex crime, although what constitutes a sex crime differs by culture and by legal jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions, offenses include child sexual abuse, downloading child pornography, rape, and statutory rape. In much of the United States, public urination, mooning, streaking, and the failure to prevent one's own teenage children from engaging in otherwise consensual sexual activity also result being designated as a sex offender, requiring registration as such in publicly available.

 

[Grailknight]

the failure to prevent one's own teenage children from engaging in otherwise consensual sexual activity

...This results in being tagged a sex offender?

...For serious?

...For REALLY SERIOUS?

 

[Jazzy]

...This results in being tagged a sex offender?

...For serious?

...For REALLY SERIOUS?

A variety of laws aim to protect children by making various acts with children a sex crime. These can include Age of Consent laws, laws preventing the exposure of children to pornography, laws making it a crime for a child to be involved in (or exposed to) certain sexual behaviors, and laws against child grooming and the production and ownership of child pornography (sometimes including simulated images). In some countries such as the UK, the age for child pornography is higher than the age of consent, hence child pornography laws also cover images involving consenting adults.



Non-consensual sadomasochistic acts may legally constitute assault, and therefore belong in this list. In addition, some jurisdictions criminalize some or all sadomasochistic acts, regardless of legal consent and impose liability for any injuries caused.



Link for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_the_law#Age_of_consent

 

[Grailknight]

You lost me there >.<

What I gathered from your earlier post is this:



In state X, the age of consent of 18.

Two teenagers, aged 16 and 17, have consensual sex.

The parents of these children can now be labeled sex offenders.



I would hope that I'm just reading things wrong, because if that's true, it's retarded. You can't stop your teenagers from having sex; the best you can do is educate them on the possible consequences, and explain that it's better to wait.

 

[Jazzy]

You lost me there >.<

What I gathered from your earlier post is this:



In state X, the age of consent of 18.

Two teenagers, aged 16 and 17, have consensual sex.

The parents of these children can now be labeled sex offenders.



I would hope that I'm just reading things wrong, because if that's true, it's retarded. You can't stop your teenagers from having sex; the best you can do is educate them on the possible consequences, and explain that it's better to wait.

In many countries, including Australia, Canada, India, Philippines, United Kingdom, Brazil and Croatia, a minor is presently defined as a person under the age of 18. In the United States, where the age of majority is set by the individual states, minor usually refers to someone under the age of 18, but can be used in certain areas (such as gambling and the consuming of alcohol) to define someone under the age of 21.



In the criminal justice system in some places, minor is not entirely synonymous, as a minor may be tried for a crime (and punished) as a juvenile or an adult (usually only for extremely serious crimes such as murder).



So, two teenagers, aged 16 and 17, have consensual sex. The parents of these children can now be labeled sex offenders (If charges were bought against the parents)

 

[Nebulous]

Well the debate is not weather or not sex offenders and pedophiles are the same thing. I'll change the topic title.

It wouldn't help prevent sex crimes, just solve them.

[sarcasm] Yeah, that would be just plain horrible! [/sarcasm]

But seeing as they're already known sex offenders, solving crimes by DNA comparison is just as easy.

DNA isnt left behind in every case.

 

[dynastygal]

Not all pedophiles are sex offenders.

Not all sex offenders are pedophiles.

Indeed. Paedophilia is a state of mind. When played out in real life using youngsters, then it's an offense (in some countries, in other countries it's legal).

 

[Grailknight]

You try having sex without leaving DNA - it's impossible.

However, it won't stay forever, so yeah, if it's reported too late, there might not be DNA evidence.

However, is it worth sacrificing someone's privacy for an unknown increase in solved crimes? My opinion is no.

 

[Nebulous]

However, is it worth sacrificing someone's privacy for an unknown increase in solved crimes? My opinion is no.

Pedophiles should have no privacy. Really they should be in a mental institution.

 

[dynastygal]

Pedophiles should have no privacy. Really they should be in a mental institution.

Probably only just over a 100 years before now, paedophilia was normal and youngsters were married off to older men in hopes of gaining prosperity for the family. This is still done in middle eastern countries. Paedophilia in itself is just a different sexual attraction. It also doesn't help when children nowadays are wearing adult clothing and dolling themselves up so they look older than they are.



You can't help what you're attracted to, but you can help what you do with said attraction. As long as it stays in the mind, who cares?

 

[Nebulous]

I do. I wouldn't want someone looking at a five year old with sexual attraction in their mind. That is just disgusting. Obviously something is wrong with the person.

 

[dynastygal]

What you don't know cannot harm you. You don't know what anyone is thinking unless they state what they are thinking.



The only thing wrong with the person is living in an age where what the majority thinks is what is right.

 

[Nebulous]

Strange you are so supportive of pedophiles.

Anyways, many pedophiles act on their emotions at one point.

They should never be alone with children nor get the opportunity. Which is why they should be in a mental institution.

That isn't really realistic so electronic tagging should be implemented.

 

[sbfc]

Don't know whether they need to be electronically tagged, just castrated and maybe have their hands cut off.

 

[Nebulous]

Don't know whether they need to be electronically tagged, just castrated and maybe have their hands cut off.

There you go.