Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) => Topic started by: Anonymous on May 26, 2006, 07:14:00 PM
-
hI. My daughter can not live with me right now because my husband is a sex offender. I am loking to send her to live at a boarding school. Any ideas to an appropiate placement?
-
Divorce your husband and be a parent.
-
I agree. Why the hell would you want to be married to some jerk who is a sex offender? And why would you put HIM before your daughter?
I do hope this is a joke, and that no mother is actually this STUPID.
-
I <3 trolls, don't you?
-
The appropriate place for that vile thing you call a husband is out on his butt.
-
It is amazing how all repsonses so far concentrated on condemning the 'sex offender' without any knowledge of the specifics. There is a guy in Texas who cannot live with his wife and children because he is a sex offender. He is a sex offender because the first time he had sex with his now wife, she was only 17. He was in his early twenties.
While not trying to excuse the 20 something year old's actions with a 17 year old girl, don't you think it's stupid he cannot live with her and his children now that they are married?
How about this?
And in cases where the offenders are children themselves, Kanka believes they also should be included in the virtual lineup. Take Chevy Lee Driggars, a 15-year-old who was 13 when he was convicted of indecent sexual contact with an 11-year-old girl.
Some people might argue that children would better benefit from counseling rather than public humiliation, but the state of Texas is no softie.
"If you commit a sex crime in Texas, you're considered an adult," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. Some 2,000 of the state's 35,000 sex offenders are juveniles, she said.
For Garcia, he hopes his record will be taken off-line altogether.
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,53075,00.html (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,53075,00.html)
I would like to see some statistics, if there are any, on what percentage of sex offenders are registered because they were young and dating someone younger, you know, like 18 and 16 or 17 and 15, etc. To me, these kids are not really sex offenders. But, justice is blind.
-
I'd like to see the troll who posted this bullshit story in the first place to drop fucking dead.
-
Why don't you try asking relatives to help?
If you send your daughter away you will be punishing her for her father's failings and she will see that.
Sending your child away should be your absolute last resort and no one on here is qualified to help you find a good one.
I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
--Frank Lloyd Wright, American architect
-
On 2006-05-26 16:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"hI. My daughter can not live with me right now because my husband is a sex offender. I am loking to send her to live at a boarding school. Any ideas to an appropiate placement?"
You've go the money to send your kid to a boarding school and the best you can do is a sex offender? Obviously, a PENIS is more important than the welfare of your kid. Throw the bum out, and take the money you would spend on boarding school and invest in male prostitutes. That way you could have your PENIS (cake) and eat it too. LOL.[ This Message was edited by: on 2006-05-28 17:12 ]
-
I want you to be sent away, your are a lousy excuse for a parent, Your daughter needs to be in the hands of someone who would not give her up for a piece of ass! you are nothing, and scum and should be prosicuted for endangering a child!!!You are below the dirt we spit on, I hope you rot in hell. bitch do your self a favor and give your child up!!!! :flame: :flame: :flame:
-
You people are more fucked up than the Anon.
Try midland school outside of Los Olivos California. It is a rustic coed setting with no element of mental quakery. The teachers are some of the same I had when I graduated from there in 94 and are all genuinely nice and caring people. I also believe they possess the ability to be discrete.
Basically a toned down college prep boarding school.
http://www.midland-school.org/ (http://www.midland-school.org/)
-
Even if the offender is only a few years older than the victim, and we have no reason to suggest this is the case, I still think they are accurately labeled as sex offenders for committing such crimes.
There are a whole lot of people to bone that are the same age as them or at least legal. If they had a hint of self-control, they could keep it in their pants until finding someone they can legally hump. If they cannot control themselves despite knowing that they're breaking the law, then why should we expect them to follow any other related laws? If they are 13 and have sex with an 11 year-old, as was suggested as being okay, would 8 or 9 be too young? What about 3 or 4?
You're suggesting that laws should be interpreted after the fact to the benefit of the criminal. Laws are laws to set rules for society, and people who break them are guilty.
-
On 2006-05-31 15:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Even if the offender is only a few years older than the victim, and we have no reason to suggest this is the case, I still think they are accurately labeled as sex offenders for committing such crimes.
There are a whole lot of people to bone that are the same age as them or at least legal. If they had a hint of self-control, they could keep it in their pants until finding someone they can legally hump. If they cannot control themselves despite knowing that they're breaking the law, then why should we expect them to follow any other related laws? If they are 13 and have sex with an 11 year-old, as was suggested as being okay, would 8 or 9 be too young? What about 3 or 4?
You're suggesting that laws should be interpreted after the fact to the benefit of the criminal. Laws are laws to set rules for society, and people who break them are guilty. "
And youth is legally a mitigating factor and has been for over one-hundred years. Under the concept of juvenile justice, a minor, by definition cannot be a criminal and cannot be charged with a crime. They are considered a deliquent. There is no trial. There is a disposition. The intention is to intervene "on behalf of" the offender. The intervention is to be of a rehabilitative nature and not a punitive nature. The intervention should be the least restrictive possible and for the shortest possible duration. All these are written principles of juvenile justice dating from 1899. I guess our anscestors were more reasonable than we are now.
And what are you talking about with 8 or 9 and 3 or 4? Are you suggesting that if a 9 year old touches an 8 year old, he/she should be charged with a crime? Are you nuts? Kids playing doctor are not criminals.
And furthermore, the difference in age makes a huge difference. If two 14 year olds have sex, who is the criminal? The older by default? That makes no sense. Many States have "Romeo and Juliet" laws that take the age difference thing into account.
I understand a line has to be drawn, but the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 is dubious at best. There is no magical moment on a person's 18th birthday that makes them more capable of decision making. We just have to draw a line somewhere and that is where it is drawn.
I realize that in the past 20 years we have undermined the concept of juvenile justice by allowing minors to be tried as adults and I am opposed to this. They may be able to tell the difference between right and wrong, but they are not old enough to be able to manage their defense in an adult court. And let's not even discuss a 'jury of their peers!'
Ignorant people who rant about the 'law is the law' and take the human component out of it are the reason for draconian mandatory sentencing laws that take the judgement factor away from the judge. Our prisons are filled with minor offenders that in the past would have been fine after a good scare and a slap on the wrist. It's stupid.
It is also way off-topic.[ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-05-31 20:26 ][ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-05-31 20:28 ]
-
On 2006-05-31 15:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Even if the offender is only a few years older than the victim, and we have no reason to suggest this is the case, I still think they are accurately labeled as sex offenders for committing such crimes.
There are a whole lot of people to bone that are the same age as them or at least legal. If they had a hint of self-control, they could keep it in their pants until finding someone they can legally hump. If they cannot control themselves despite knowing that they're breaking the law, then why should we expect them to follow any other related laws? If they are 13 and have sex with an 11 year-old, as was suggested as being okay, would 8 or 9 be too young? What about 3 or 4?
You're suggesting that laws should be interpreted after the fact to the benefit of the criminal. Laws are laws to set rules for society, and people who break them are guilty. "
One more thought that I think is important. If all these people are registered as sex offenders, what good does it do me to pull the list of sex offenders for my neighborhood? How can I tell which ones pose real threats and which ones just could not resist temptation when they were kids themselves? The list becomes too long and places unwarranted fears into parents' minds.
-
So you wouldn't consider a 13 year old a threat to your daughter if he's already had sex with a 9 year old?
You wouldn't want that info?
Anyway, searches on sex offenders do not show juvenile offenders' info. Sadly, that's not public knowledge until they reoffend after age 18 and are caught and convicted. Statistically it is almost a guarantee that they will reoffend, much more than with any other type of crime. This is why we only have a sex offender registry and not one for shoplifters, etc.
-
On 2006-05-26 16:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"hI. My daughter can not live with me right now because my husband is a sex offender. I am loking to send her to live at a boarding school. Any ideas to an appropiate placement?"
I know this sounds crazy....but I have been through it all. If she is a good kid, I would consider having her in my home. We live in a beautiful home, on 3 acres and I am completely sane. You can give us the money to take care of her. Check me out at http://www.myspace.com/ccmgirl1989 (http://www.myspace.com/ccmgirl1989)
-
He is considered a sex offender because he molested his step sister 10 years ago.
-
Who gives a shit about the justness of sex offender laws? This broad is SENDING HER DAUGHTER AWAY for no other reason than that he is a sex offender. I don't care if he fucked his 16yo girlfriend when he was 18. Why is sending the daughter away even an option? The idiot parents who post here never cease to amaze me.
-
Forgot to log in. That was me.
-
Maybe the daughter wants to go away. Would that ever occur to any of you or is leaving your cozy little homes and, god forbid, access to Fornits more than you can bear the thought of?
-
On 2006-06-01 19:06:00, Anonymous wrote:
Statistically it is almost a guarantee that they will reoffend, much more than with any other type of crime. This is why we only have a sex offender registry and not one for shoplifters, etc."
Please cite your source for the research. I suspect you are not correct
-
On 2006-06-02 00:50:00, CCM girl 1989 wrote:
"
On 2006-05-26 16:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"hI. My daughter can not live with me right now because my husband is a sex offender. I am loking to send her to live at a boarding school. Any ideas to an appropiate placement?"
I know this sounds crazy....but I have been through it all. If she is a good kid, I would consider having her in my home. We live in a beautiful home, on 3 acres and I am completely sane. You can give us the money to take care of her. Check me out at http://www.myspace.com/ccmgirl1989 (http://www.myspace.com/ccmgirl1989)"
What an incredibly generous offer![ This Message was edited by: Badpuppy on 2006-06-02 20:04 ]
-
On 2006-06-01 19:06:00, Anonymous wrote:
"So you wouldn't consider a 13 year old a threat to your daughter if he's already had sex with a 9 year old?
You wouldn't want that info?
Anyway, searches on sex offenders do not show juvenile offenders' info. Sadly, that's not public knowledge until they reoffend after age 18 and are caught and convicted. Statistically it is almost a guarantee that they will reoffend, much more than with any other type of crime. This is why we only have a sex offender registry and not one for shoplifters, etc."
The point is well taken and demonstrates the complexity of the issue. It is, of course, impossible to predict who will and who will not re-offend and there is no cure. The usual treatment is a form of 'chemical castration' combined with therapy to get the offender to understand why their behavior is wrong.
I still stand by original statements. Teens will engage in sex with each other and this should not usually be considered a crime. It depends on specific circumstances. It is very difficult to design laws and policies that can cover all circumstances. So, the line was drawn at 18, etc.
Anyway, we are way off-topic.
The other posters have a more valid point when they question why the new guy (sex offender) should take precedence in the home over the child. She does not deserve to be removed from her mom and home just because a new guy shows up. The children are supposed to come first. For some reason, parents keep forgetting this.
-
Agreed. This is a perfect example of a horrible parent who should have tied her tubes if she's willing to dispose of her child so easily.
Perhaps the girl has a friend whose parents would be willing to offer foster care? CCM girl's offer was generous, yet it would force her to leave her friends, school, and community. The abandonment her mother is planning will be traumatic enough for her.
-
That's true, it would cause her to have to leave her friends which isn't fair. Why should she have to leave????? Parents who send their kids to these places for the most part are very selfish.
-
As if there could be any question that sending your kid(s) off to some pseudo-therapeutic greed-based mind control cult is any kind of solution to anything!!! You all should have been abortions yourselves and have no business being responisible for the life of another human being.