• 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!

Sex offender stamp on Passports?

Sex offender stamp on Passports?

  • Total voters
    16
I say no. Peeing near a school at 2am can get you on a list. False charges can. 18 year old with almost 18 year old girl friend can... way to easy to get on a stupid list.
 
Bodhisattva said:
People that sexually abuse children and women, for the most part?

MORE THAN WE DO NOW...
Click to expand...

I understand that it is a horrible crime.
I'm just not big on scarlet letter laws.

It also doesn't necessarily address "Romeo and Juliette" type situations.
People who fall into that area of "sex offender" status, are being horribly abused.
 
I have no objection to "trying to treat them." I have a big objection to believing psychiatrists and psychologists when they say, "They're all better now."

A man named Garrison was called the police in California and said he was in Colorado Springs and needed to be arrested. He's been "cured" and released but he was still killing. In fact, he said that the day he met with the board and was certified "cured" he had a woman's head in the trunk of his car.

Meanwhile, I think having criminal records on passports would be a good idea. We've had too many pedophiles showing up in foreign countries and preying on poor people. It gives all Americans a bad reputation.
 
digsbe said:
If I'm not mistaken, I believe when you visit another country immigration can look up your criminal record to deem you inadmissible. I'm sure sex offenses will populate, I don't see much of a point in putting a marker on a passport.
Click to expand...

Maybe some countries but a lot of the ones I have been through are not checking anything. Also to do that would create extremely long lines going through immigration I would think.
 
No, but this information should light up at the passport control if they travel to countries known for child sexual exploitation.
 
Peter King said:
No, but this information should light up at the passport control if they travel to countries known for child sexual exploitation.
Click to expand...

The information would possibly raise an eyebrow if it were on the passport. Any other checking would be too time consuming, too expensive, and too much trouble. We had two pedophiles show up where I live in Mexico who had been deported from Mexico previously and they weren't stopped at the entry point. They were both arrested, sent to prison, and got tons of sympathy from many Americans.
 
Patrickt said:
The information would possibly raise an eyebrow if it were on the passport. Any other checking would be too time consuming, too expensive, and too much trouble. We had two pedophiles show up where I live in Mexico who had been deported from Mexico previously and they weren't stopped at the entry point. They were both arrested, sent to prison, and got tons of sympathy from many Americans.
Click to expand...

Well, that is the problem of US customs and Mexican customs control and is not a valid reason to put it on passports IMO.
 
No. No. 100x's No.

The amount of restrictions and regulations we keep adding on to those on the sex offender registry (and we all know how simple it is to get on that thing), we are getting to the point where we may as well just execute them, because its becoming near impossible for them to get a job, have a place to live, travel, etc.

When you start placing too many regulations upon them, it becomes an impediment to rehabilitation, it becomes an impediment to them moving past the mistake (because that is what the vast majority on the list are there for... a one time mistake) and moving on with their lives.
 
PeteEU said:
Problem is that some of the **** you can be tagged as a sex offender in the US is absolutely ridiculous. If it was only for rapists and pedos, then sure, but it aint..
Click to expand...

It ain't?

A lawsuit challenging a law that requires a marker to be placed in the passports of people convicted of sex offenses against children is premature because the marker provision is not yet in effect, a federal judge said in a ruling dismissing the suit.
Click to expand...

That's from the original OP article: Sex offender stamp on passports ? derided as a Scarlet Letter ? upheld after U.S. legal challenge | National Post

It's not just for people accused of or alleged to have committed sex crimes but for people who have been convicted in a court of law.

And it isn't for people convicted of any old sex crime but sex crimes committed against children.

So...pedos...no?
 
Caine said:
No. No. 100x's No.

The amount of restrictions and regulations we keep adding on to those on the sex offender registry (and we all know how simple it is to get on that thing), we are getting to the point where we may as well just execute them, because its becoming near impossible for them to get a job, have a place to live, travel, etc.

When you start placing too many regulations upon them, it becomes an impediment to rehabilitation, it becomes an impediment to them moving past the mistake (because that is what the vast majority on the list are there for... a one time mistake) and moving on with their lives.
Click to expand...
You also run the risk of driving them homeless/underground... and I've heard people say "Good!" about that... but then you don't even know where they are.
 
Grand Mal said:
Get caught pissing on a dumpster in an alley and you're exposed in public, an exhibitionist, on the list. I know someone that happened to- granted, he'd already attracted the attention through a dispute with bouncers but he's forever known as a sex offender.
Click to expand...

Exactly...

Back in my police days, when I caught a dude peeing in public... I'd verbally scold him for doing such an ignorant thing and make sure he got to a proper resting place (back to his hotel, to his home, etc).

I made sure I was absolutely NOT going to play any role in ruining an otherwise normal life for these people.


I mean, regret ****s... revenge false reports....lying about age to a drunken horny guy.... all these sorts of things make that area of the law a place I didn't want to bother with.
 
radcen said:
You also run the risk of driving them homeless/underground... and I've heard people say "Good!" about that... but then you don't even know where they are.
Click to expand...

Its funny how up in arms people get over sex offenses.......especially when considering all the excuses people make for many of the violent pieces of trash we have seen in the news lately after police involved shootings.

I'd trust a dude who at one time 5 years ago grabbed 15 year old's boob over a guy who says, "Dey WHITE??? GET DEY ASS!!!" and then start being an innocent white dude as my neighbor any day of the week.
 
JANFU said:
Sex offender stamp on passports — derided as a Scarlet Letter — upheld after U.S. legal challenge

Sex offender stamp on passports ? derided as a Scarlet Letter ? upheld after U.S. legal challenge | National Post

Sex offender stamp on Passports?
Yes
No
Other

Question - If yes what other criminal convictions should also be included?
Click to expand...

If we consider a given person to be so dangerous that we can't let them go anywhere or do anything in peace... why did we let them out of prison?

There's only two possible reasons to do something like this to somebody:

1. We're assholes who think it's funny to subject someone to such constant shaming and potential danger from vigilantes.

2. There is something seriously wrong with our justice system, and rather than fix it and keep children safer, we've decided to just offer this as a token gesture and not ask ourselves why sex crimes often get lower sentences than simple drug possession.

Either one is a serious indictment of our culture.
 
Caine said:
What constitutes a "child"?
Click to expand...

According to the laws governing most federal issues (SSI benefits, federal child abuse and neglect laws, etc...) a child is any a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.

Works for me.

If you're over 18, don't stick your dick in anyone who isn't.

I don't care if you're "in love".
 
soot said:
According to the laws governing most federal issues (SSI benefits, federal child abuse and neglect laws, etc...) a child is any a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.

Works for me.

If you're over 18, don't stick your dick in anyone who isn't.

I don't care if you're "in love".
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem.

With puberty occurring much earlier than 18 in both males and females, and hormones telling both to crave sexual activity, its absolutely absurd to put some form of an arbitrary age number on such a natural response to our body chemistry.

Most people even on this very forum were involved in sexual activity before the age of 18......our music, movie, television, and now internet culture makes it much more difficult to keep this activity in check like back in the good ole days of the 1940s when people were scared of this sort of thing......

There are so many factors involved it is just absurd to think that one should be persecuted for nearly the rest of their adult lives because of a sexual act they made at a younger age.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
If we consider a given person to be so dangerous that we can't let them go anywhere or do anything in peace... why did we let them out of prison?

There's only two possible reasons to do something like this to somebody:

1. We're assholes who think it's funny to subject someone to such constant shaming and potential danger from vigilantes.

2. There is something seriously wrong with our justice system, and rather than fix it and keep children safer, we've decided to just offer this as a token gesture and not ask ourselves why sex crimes often get lower sentences than simple drug possession.

Either one is a serious indictment of our culture.
Click to expand...
I go with your Option #2. Talk to most legislators and they'll agree an overhaul is needed and that the 19 yr old guy with a 17 yr old girlfriend doesn't belong on the list, or the guy who pee'd in public doesn't belong on the list. But they won't do anything about it because, if they did, their opponent would vilify them in the next election and portray them as "soft on crime", "soft on pedophiles", etc. Truth be damned, gotta unseat that guy and win the election. And still too many voters don't investigate and fall for it.

And yes, it is a serious indictment of our culture.
 
soot said:
According to the laws governing most federal issues (SSI benefits, federal child abuse and neglect laws, etc...) a child is any a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.

Works for me.

If you're over 18, don't stick your dick in anyone who isn't.

I don't care if you're "in love".
Click to expand...
So, 18/17 wouldn't matter to you. Got it.
 
Caine said:
And therein lies the problem.

With puberty occurring much earlier than 18 in both males and females, and hormones telling both to crave sexual activity, its absolutely absurd to put some form of an arbitrary age number on such a natural response to our body chemistry.

Most people even on this very forum were involved in sexual activity before the age of 18......our music, movie, television, and now internet culture makes it much more difficult to keep this activity in check like back in the good ole days of the 1940s when people were scared of this sort of thing......

There are so many factors involved it is just absurd to think that one should be persecuted for nearly the rest of their adult lives because of a sexual act they made at a younger age.
Click to expand...

Actually those "good old days" never existed. Just a lot more teen pregnancy and shotgun weddings. Also, the age of first sexual debut is creeping upwards, and is now in the rather late teens. Sex ed works, turns out. But anyway...

I agree, but I don't think we can do away with these laws entirely, because they do exist for a valid reason: much older people using status to coerce teens into sex. That's a legitimate problem, and furthermore, it's not something we can fight by better preparing teens: teenagers still have a bit of their "child brain" that tells them to defer to adults. At least if the adult is scary enough. It's part of their neurology.

I think it'd be more sensible to take each case as it is. For example, if we had a case of an 18-year-old coercing a 16-year-old, I'd really consider that a rape case, not child molestation. If we have an 18-year-old just having sex with a 16-year-old, I'm really not concerned about it at all.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
I go with your Option #2. Talk to most legislators and they'll agree an overhaul is needed and that the 19 yr old guy with a 17 yr old girlfriend doesn't belong on the list, or the guy who pee'd in public doesn't belong on the list. But they won't do anything about it because, if they did, their opponent would vilify them in the next election and portray them as "soft on crime", "soft on pedophiles", etc. Truth be damned, gotta unseat that guy and win the election. And still too many voters don't investigate and fall for it.

And yes, it is a serious indictment of our culture.
Click to expand...

Yep, me too. I doubt we're just an entire nation of assholes, and properly explained, I bet most people would feel really bad for that guy who streaked at his college football game and wound up paying for it for the rest of his life.

But it isn't just that. It's also genuine rapists and pedophiles. If we are so convinced they are still a danger that we feel a need to stalk their address and post it online so everyone in their neighborhood knows what they did and put a stamp in their passport... why did we let them out?

It makes sense that we do that. Most serious sex offenders re-offend. A lot of them have a rap sheet as long as my arm and full of atrocities by the time they're 35. So why the **** do we keep giving them 3-year sentences and then letting them out even earlier for good behaviour? I'm not even kidding. Pull up your own local Level 3 sex offender list and look at some of those people. That's literally what we're doing. A slap on the wrist for raping someone at gunpoint, or similar such horribleness. And also, notice the way they congregate around parks. Gee, what a coincidence.

I fundamentally hate the idea that we feel we have a right to stalk and shame people like this, in a supposedly free country. But I also hate the fact that we have such dangerous people who pretty much pay no real consequences for some of the most heinous crimes a single individual can commit.

If they're not safe to release, we shouldn't be releasing them.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Actually those "good old days" never exists. Just a lot more teen pregnancy and shotgun weddings. Also, the age of first sexual debut is creeping upwards, and is now in the rather late teens. Sex ed works, turns out. But anyway...

I agree, but I don't think we can do away with these laws entirely, because they do exist for a valid reason: much older people using status to coerce teens into sex. That's a legitimate problem, and furthermore, it's not something we can fight by better preparing teens: teenagers still have a bit of their "child brain" that tells them to defer to adults. At least if the adult is scary enough. It's part of their neurology.

I think it'd be more sensible to take each case as it is. For example, if we had a case of an 18-year-old coercing a 16-year-old, I'd really consider that a rape case, not child molestation. If we have an 18-year-old just having sex with a 16-year-old, I'm really not concerned about it at all.
Click to expand...

LOL... My reference to "the good ole days" was facetious.... I am aware that there was plenty of shagging amongst teens going on back then.

I do agree that much older people coercing teens into sex is a problem.... but far too often teens are also the aggressors of the sexual activity (hormones and all). Of course people would claim "Don't blame the victim!!!" But is the teen really a victim when they were the ones who wanted to engage in sexual activity and chased the older party and coerced them into it? That is like saying that I am the victim of assault if I tell a person sincerely, "I want you to punch me in the nose as hard as you can.".... then someone other than me gets the person who I got to punch me arrested. (In this metaphor, the "person other than me" would be the teen's parents).

Personally I think after sex education and physical sexual development has occurred in a person, any sexual activity they willingly engage in should not be punished on either party's end. Whether the older party coerced the other is a matter of investigation that should be conducted. Far too often late teen and 20-21 year olds are being charged for having sex with 15 and 16 year olds when the younger party desired it and refuse to cooperate in prosecution.
 
soot said:
It ain't?



That's from the original OP article: Sex offender stamp on passports ? derided as a Scarlet Letter ? upheld after U.S. legal challenge | National Post

It's not just for people accused of or alleged to have committed sex crimes but for people who have been convicted in a court of law.

And it isn't for people convicted of any old sex crime but sex crimes committed against children.

So...pedos...no?
Click to expand...

Hell no.

If you are a teenager, and take nude selfies... you are making child porn and will be registered as a sex offender for life.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/201...s-ruined-children-put-sex-offender-registries

Another case in the report: “In 2004, in Western Pennsylvania, a 15-year-old girl was charged with manufacturing and disseminating child pornography for having taken nude photos of herself and (posting) them on the internet. She was charged as an adult, and as of 2012 was facing registration for life.”
Click to expand...

Absolutely insane... the list goes on and on..

Surprising Things That Could Make You A Sex Offender - Business Insider

Having sex with an under 18 year old.. even if you, yourself is under 18.

So yes, having it put in a passport is absolutely insane under the current conditions...
 
Caine said:
Most people even on this very forum were involved in sexual activity before the age of 18......
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I was.

But with girls (in my case, but it really doesn't matter in general - whatever floats your boat) who were also under the age of 18.

And there's nothing in any of our child sexual abuse laws that say a 16-year-old can't give a hand job to another 16-year-old.

When I was 19 and in to my early 20s I no longer had a sexual interest in 15 and 16-year-olds.

And I think that's probably the case for most reasonably well adjusted people.

If you're 18, and having sex with a 15-year-old, or 21 and having sex with a 17-year-old, you're wrong.

I agree that we're not living in the 1940s and that "kids these days" are becoming sexually active at younger and younger ages.

It's sad, in my opinion, that kids are surrendering their childhood to peer pressure when they should, by all rights, still very much be children.

But that doesn't make it okay for adults to take advantage of them.

We teach our children as best we can and instill them with our values as best we can but at the end of the day they're all still going to make some decisions, frequently bad ones, that go against our wishes.

Really nothing we can do about that.

This isn't about that.

This is about adults, who SHOULD know better, and who MUST be held accountable under the law for their own actions, being held to such account.

And I'll tell you what, in the interest of not being too much of a boor, I'll even concede, for the sake of argument, that maybe there is some biological gray area between the ages of 16 and 18 and 20.

Frankly I think it's nonsense because by the time you're 18 you can vote, drive, serve in the military, and do all kinds of other things that require even greater cognitive capacity than simply knowing it's wrong to have sex with high school kids.

But maybe there are a few poor, happy, maladjusted fools out there who just don't "get it" but are otherwise really great people and genuinely have nothing but love in their hearts.

So I'll say this, as an absolute line in the sand, 18 is a gray area but by 21 you are a child sexual predator if you're having any kind of sex with anyone under the age of 18 and you deserve a lengthy prison sentence, public ridicule and ostracism, and to wear your crime around your neck like an allegorical albatross for the rest of your life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom