• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minn. sex offender seeks to be freed from program

j-mac said:
Yep, you're right because this....




sounds exactly like your descriptions of what he wasn't convicted of....


j-mac
Click to expand...

If he was the only person on the planet labeled sex offender, we wouldn't have a problem. Problem is, he isn't.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
If he was the only person on the planet labeled sex offender, we wouldn't have a problem. Problem is, he isn't.
Click to expand...

That was from the OP. This is whom we are talking about. Why do you feel the need to go off topic?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
That was from the OP. This is whom we are talking about. Why do you feel the need to go off topic?


j-mac
Click to expand...

How is it going off topic to bring up the fact that not all sex offenses are the same, so not everyone can be judged by this guys actions.

A moderator you are not, so don't play one on TV.

And just so you know, murderers with life in prison eligible for parole only do 8-10 years. This guy committed his last offense 31 years ago. If he is eligible for release, he must be released. If you aren't happy with the length of sentence given, that must be addressed at sentencing. After his sentence is up, like it or not, he must be released.

And to the OP, nobody claims "curing" a sex offender. You can't cure pedophilia (but this guy wasn't a pedophile) just like you can't cure being gay. They are taught how to manage their desires and instead of offending, taking care of business in some other way, usually avoiding instances where a temptation might arise.
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
How is it going off topic to bring up the fact that not all sex offenses are the same, so not everyone can be judged by this guys actions.
Click to expand...


Because this thread isn't about every sex offender under the sun. It is however, about this individual.

A moderator you are not, so don't play one on TV.
Click to expand...

Whew, thank God. Those people have way too much responsibility.


And just so you know, murderers with life in prison eligible for parole only do 8-10 years. This guy committed his last offense 31 years ago.
Click to expand...


So what. Both should get the needle. Now what?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Because this thread isn't about every sex offender under the sun. It is however, about this individual.



Whew, thank God. Those people have way too much responsibility.





So what. Both should get the needle. Now what?


j-mac
Click to expand...

What about the hundreds of people that have been removed from death row by new evidence?

You better watch where you stick that needle, one false accusation could have you feeling it sticking your own arm.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
What about the hundreds of people that have been removed from death row by new evidence?

You better watch where you stick that needle, one false accusation could have you feeling it sticking your own arm.
Click to expand...

Evidence for "hundreds" please.
 
The man has done his time. He's 68 years old, having spent the last 30 years doing hard time. Incarceration tends to age you faster than the comforts of home. I doubt that sex is the first thing on his mind, if he's even capable of such an act.

He's committed some of the worst sex crimes on the books. If he's on the registry, he won't be able to find work or a place to live. No one will want to have anything to do with him.

I'll be checking in the future to see if any of ya'll are posting in the 'Sex and Sexuality' forum when you're 68 years of age. You do know why old men have high voices don't you?
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Evidence for "hundreds" please.
Click to expand...

Sure thing bub. I don't make stuff up to make a point. Everything I say I can back up.

Innocence and the Crisis in the American Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

So far, 116 removed since 1973. And that doesn't include the ones who were put to death before there was a chance to prove themselves innocent, or they had no means to do that.

List of people in Texas alone who were found innocent after execution:

Frank Basil McFarland was executed for a rape/murder despite multiple inconsistencies in the state’s case, altered evidence, purchased and coerced testimony, and suppressed evidence of guilt. After execcution, he was found innocent by DNA testing.

Troy Farris was convicted of the murder of a police officer. DNA proved he was innocent. Gov. George W Bush deny clemency. Troy Farris was execcuted.

Jerry Lee Hogue was convicted of an arson/murder. Another individual later admited to the crime, but was denied further investigation by Gov. Bush. Mr Hogue was execcuted.

David Stoker was convicted of capital murder based on the testimony of three witnesses, who later recanted their testimony. Doubts aside, Gov. Bush executed Mr. Stoker.

Richard Wayne Jones, was convicted of a murder despite strong evidence that his sister’s boyfriend had committed it. DNA testing was denied by Gov. Bush, and approved his execution.

Willie Williams and Joseph Nichols both shot at their murder victim, but only one hit him. In order to execute both, Texas argued that each had killed the man; in one trial, the state argued that Mr. Williams had shot the victim and Mr. Nichols had missed, and in the next trial, the state argued that Mr. Nichols had shot the victim and Mr. Williams had missed. Both were convicted of capital murder. Mr. Williams was executed by Gov. Bush; Mr. Nichols is still on death row.

James Lee Beathard was convicted of capital murder based on the testimony of the admitted murderer, Gene Hathorn. Still, Gov. Bush executed Mr. Beathard, though he was innovent.

Gary Graham was convicted of capital murder on the basis of one eyewitness’s testimony. Despite DNA evidence that provees otherwise, Mr. Graham was executed by Gov. Bush.

David Wayne Spence was convicted of capital murder although no physical evidence linked him to the crime and almost every witness against him admitted that his or her testimony had been purchased or coerced. DNA evidence says that another man had committed the triple murder. Nevertheless, Gov. Bush executed Mr. Spence.
Click to expand...

http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/deathpenalty/

In 1997, Illinois halted executions when DNA testing found 52% of their deathrow inmates were innocent.

The people who were exhonorated are: Rolando Cruz, Alejandro Hernandez, Verneal Jimerson, Dennis Williams, Joseph Burrows, Gary Gauger, Carl Lawson, Perry Cobb, Darby Tillis.
Click to expand...

116 people who were innocent who were looking at the needle shows me we can't trust our justice system, period. The death penalty must go.
 
Last edited:
Mickey Shane said:
The man has done his time. He's 68 years old, having spent the last 30 years doing hard time. Incarceration tends to age you faster than the comforts of home. I doubt that sex is the first thing on his mind, if he's even capable of such an act.

He's committed some of the worst sex crimes on the books. If he's on the registry, he won't be able to find work or a place to live. No one will want to have anything to do with him.

I'll be checking in the future to see if any of ya'll are posting in the 'Sex and Sexuality' forum when you're 68 years of age. You do know why old men have high voices don't you?
Click to expand...



Uh huh....




j-mac
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Sure thing bub. I don't make stuff up to make a point. Everything I say I can back up.
Click to expand...

Didn't say that you couldn't back it up.

dontworrybehappy said:
So far, 116 removed since 1973. And that doesn't include the ones who were put to death before there was a chance to prove themselves innocent, or they had no means to do that.
Click to expand...

To be fair 116 since 1973 is not "hundreds". A little over one hundred yes. But not "hundreds". Exaggerateing is a way to illicit an emotional response. It's basically a way to be "honest" while being "dishonest" at the same time.

dontworrybehappy said:
List of people in Texas alone who were found innocent after execution:
Click to expand...

Most of them were convicted before DNA evidence was as reliable as it is today. What that list does not state was whether they were executed before or after DNA evidence proved them innocent.

dontworrybehappy said:
116 people who were innocent who were looking at the needle shows me we can't trust our justice system, period. The death penalty must go.
Click to expand...

Like I said above, all of those on that list and of the 116 people were convicted before DNA evidence became reliable.

I would challenge anyone to come up with some recent cases...say within the last 5 years, that someone was convicted wrongfully even though DNA evidence did not connect them to the crime.

Its easy to use cases that are old and before DNA forensics became reliable. Heck its commonly known that during the days of segregation and discrimination that many black folks were convicted wrongfully.

By the by perhaps you don't know my beliefs but IMO in the case of the DP it is far better that a few innocent people die due to it than possibly hundreds die to a few psychopaths that killed reletively innocent people in prison or escaped and killed people.
 
Andalublue said:
I think I'd be inclined to trust the professionals on this. The guy has served 30 years in jail and received 20 years of treatment. If the people dealing with him think he's ready for release, what's the issue?

Castration? What kind of rubbish is that? People released after 30 years for gun crime offences have their trigger fingers amputated? Thieves have their hands cut off?
Click to expand...

LOL - dear lord.

They're not cutting off anyone's dicks - chillax!
 
I don't agree with having a public sex offender registry. If you've done your time or have been given the stamp of rehabilitation, you should be able to move on with your life. The police will always know who you are, that doesn't mean others get to invade your privacy. What about rapists, murderers, money launderers, drug traffickers, etc? Should they all require a registry so that concerned citizens can look them up at will? Hell, we might as well database everyone and then give everyone else access. That's fair, right?

Fact is, you have to live nearby all sorts of people, many of whom you don't like. Unless you're rich and can live in a gated community that has profile checks on everyone, quit your whining. You're equal to everyone else and that's that.

People should have the right to try and etch out a normal life after they have left prison, otherwise the whole prison system is useless. What's the point of being rehabilitated if your community will never allow you to be anything other than what you were convicted for? You might as well just keep committing the same offence, in that case.

People deserve second chances, and they deserve dignity. If they **** up, you throw them away. If they don't get better, you throw away the key. That's how the system works and the village mob doesn't get a say in that.
 
He committed violent, forcible rape....repeatedly. He's not cured, and he doesn't deserve freedom. Castrated or not.
 
Kal'Stang said:
By the by perhaps you don't know my beliefs but IMO in the case of the DP it is far better that a few innocent people die due to it than possibly hundreds die to a few psychopaths that killed reletively innocent people in prison or escaped and killed people.
Click to expand...

That is NUTS. That is ****ING NUTS. It is FAR BETTER to let 100 guilty people walk than to execute a SINGLE INNOCENT PERSON.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
LOL - dear lord.

They're not cutting off anyone's dicks - chillax!
Click to expand...

But they could. :mrgreen:

Convicted child molester undergoes surgical castration | News | 2theadvocate.com — Baton Rouge, LA


PORT ALLEN — A West Baton Rouge Parish man underwent surgical removal of his testicles Thursday as part of a 1999 plea agreement in which he admitted to molesting three underage female victims on several hundred occasions, a sheriff’s investigator said.

Francis Phillip Tullier, 78, was arrested in 1997 and charged with more than 500 counts of molestation involving six young girls between 6 and 12 years of age throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, Sheriff’s Maj. Richie Johnson said.

Tullier was taken from the West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center to the LSU Earl K. Long Medical Center at around 5 a.m. to have the surgery, Johnson said.

He was back in jail by 5 p.m., Johnson said.
Click to expand...
 
dontworrybehappy said:
That is NUTS. That is ****ING NUTS. It is FAR BETTER to let 100 guilty people walk than to execute a SINGLE INNOCENT PERSON.
Click to expand...

And if those 100 guilty people each kill 1 innocent person? Instead of killing one innocent person you just killed 100. Yeah...great logic there. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
And if those 100 guilty people each kill 1 innocent person? Instead of killing one innocent person you just killed 100. Yeah...great logic there. :roll:
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. To pull someone off the street, arrest them, try them and convict them and kill them is murder by the state. That is absolutely unacceptable. Murder by a thug is one thing, but a murder from prosecutorial misconduct is absurd. You can't stop a murderer from committing his crime, but damn, EVERY FYCKING STEP SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PREVENT OUR OWN GOV'T FROM DOING THE SAME THING.

I can't believe you actually just said that. I always thought you to be pretty smart and reasonable. Wow, was I wrong.

We're talking about the state finding a innocent man guilty of a crime they did not commit and being executed for that crime, not murder victims in the streets. :roll: So because 100 murderers kill someone, that gives the state to right to fyck up and kill an innocent man? Is that right? I want to make sure I'm clear on this.
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
It doesn't matter. To pull someone off the street, arrest them, try them and convict them and kill them is murder by the state. That is absolutely unacceptable. Murder by a thug is one thing, but a murder from prosecutorial misconduct is absurd. You can't stop a murderer from committing his crime, but damn, EVERY FYCKING STEP SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PREVENT OUR OWN GOV'T FROM DOING THE SAME THING.

I can't believe you actually just said that. I always thought you to be pretty smart and reasonable. Wow, was I wrong.

We're talking about the state finding a innocent man guilty of a crime they did not commit and being executed for that crime, not murder victims in the streets. :roll: So because 100 murderers kill someone, that gives the state to right to fyck up and kill an innocent man? Is that right? I want to make sure I'm clear on this.
Click to expand...

Do you think that there is a difference between killing someone accidentally and killing someone in cold blood? Most people would agree that the cold blooded killer is far worse than the accidental killer.

There are state sanctioned deaths every single day. We currently have two wars going on in which someone dies pretty much every single day. In fact a nations military is designed specifically to kill people...even if innocent people get in the way. Its called collateral damage. Is it desireable? Of course not. However sometimes it is necessary and it does happen... no matter what precautions are taken to avoid it, it happens. And it happens in order to serve a greater good. And that is to preserve the life, liberty, and property of far more people than the few who got killed. As the old axiom states..."The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

Now if the state was sentencing innocent people when they knew that those people were innocent and then killed them..yeah that is wrong. But we're not talking about purposeful killings. We are talking about accidental killings. Something that is not wanted, but sometimes happens no matter the precautions taken.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And if those 100 guilty people each kill 1 innocent person? Instead of killing one innocent person you just killed 100. Yeah...great logic there. :roll:
Click to expand...

He didn't kill anyone. The scenario he's talking about doesn't really exist, and neither does yours.

The point is that innocent until proven guilty isn't just a platitude, it's a virtue. One of the consequences of living in a country that supports due process and individual rights is that the guilty sometimes go free. That's the price we pay for having human rights and freedom. It's not always going to be rosey and justice isn't always going to be perfect.

I would much rather have this system than the gulags, even if it means we have some murderers go free from time to time.
 
Temporal said:
He didn't kill anyone. The scenario he's talking about doesn't really exist, and neither does yours.

The point is that innocent until proven guilty isn't just a platitude, it's a virtue. One of the consequences of living in a country that supports due process and individual rights is that the guilty sometimes go free. That's the price we pay for having human rights and freedom. It's not always going to be rosey and justice isn't always going to be perfect.

I would much rather have this system than the gulags, even if it means we have some murderers go free from time to time.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Where did I say that "he" killed anyone?

And what the heck are you talking about here with the "innoncent until proven guilty isn't just a plaitude" bit there? We're talking about people that have been proven guilty in a court of law.

Seriously...have you even read what we have been talking about here in the last few posts? Now I admit that we have strayed from the original topic a bit here but dang...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Where did I say that "he" killed anyone?
Click to expand...

"Instead of killing one innocent person you just killed 100."

Kal'Stang said:
And what the heck are you talking about here with the "innoncent until proven guilty isn't just a plaitude" bit there? We're talking about people that have been proven guilty in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Calm down.

What I said is relevant to the death penalty, because if even one innocent person is being put to death then the system is flawed and abolition is justified.

Kal'Stang said:
Seriously...have you even read what we have been talking about here in the last few posts? Now I admit that we have strayed from the original topic a bit here but dang...
Click to expand...

Maybe if next time you gave me a chance to elaborate instead of accusing me of irrelevancy, you'd have the opportunity to know where I was coming from. Dang.
 
Temporal said:
"Instead of killing one innocent person you just killed 100."
Click to expand...

You do know that the word "you" can be meant generally right? I'm pretty sure from the way that dontworrybehappy replied he knew that I wasn't talking about him directly when I said "you".

Temporal said:
Calm down.

What I said is relevant to the death penalty, because if even one innocent person is being put to death then the system is flawed and abolition is justified.
Click to expand...

The term "innocent until proven guilty" is not relevant to the death penalty because in order to be sentenced to the DP you must first be proven guilty in a court of law. As such that statement no longer applies.


Temporal said:
Maybe if next time you gave me a chance to elaborate instead of accusing me of irrelevancy, you'd have the opportunity to know where I was coming from. Dang.
Click to expand...

I was giving you a chance...hence why I used the confused emote.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The term "innocent until proven guilty" is not relevant to the death penalty because in order to be sentenced to the DP you must first be proven guilty in a court of law. As such that statement no longer applies.
Click to expand...

*face palm*

I am trying to say that we have an imperfect justice system. There have already been innocent people put to death. If people are being exonerated now after serving 15 years in jail, then it's proof positive that we shouldn't be using the death penalty. Enough's enough.
 
Andalublue said:
I think I'd be inclined to trust the professionals on this. The guy has served 30 years in jail and received 20 years of treatment. If the people dealing with him think he's ready for release, what's the issue?

Castration? What kind of rubbish is that? People released after 30 years for gun crime offences have their trigger fingers amputated? Thieves have their hands cut off?
Click to expand...

You can't rehab a sexual predator.

If you're wired that way, you're just a genetic mistake.
 
Temporal said:
*face palm*

I am trying to say that we have an imperfect justice system. There have already been innocent people put to death. If people are being exonerated now after serving 15 years in jail, then it's proof positive that we shouldn't be using the death penalty. Enough's enough.
Click to expand...

Then say that. Using our crime systems motto after a court has determined guilt is using it incorrectly because it refers to people before the court has given a verdict.

Now I gave this challenge once before and I'll put it out there again as no one has responded to it yet.

In todays world of DNA forensics, where there has been DNA evidence, has anyone within the last 5 years that has been sentenced to the DP been found innnocent afterwards?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom