• 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!

Should Registered Offenders Be Allowed to live with minors?

Should This become law in Ohio?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • No

    Votes: 15 75.0%
  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
You know, I'm all for permanent removal from any and all types of society for kiddie diddles. Unfortunately, the supreme court says the following is cruel and unusual punishment for them:

1. We can't cut their weiners & hands off. It would go a long ways towards preventing future attacks by them.

2. We can't execute them solely for the crime of being a pervert.

3. We can't sentence them to life for just 1 or a few dozen attacks on one victim.

So, what are we to do with them? They whine when we attempt to limit where they can live and they whine when we put them in jail and they whine when they monitor what they do.

How about if we look at it this way:

Our freedom is a right and a privilege. It's our right to maintain the privilege of freedom so long as we obey the laws of society, do not harm other members of society. The Registered Offenders are constantly arguing they have the right to live anywhere, to move around freely. What about the rights of those of us who have never broken the law?

**Note: As far as the person who mentioned that criminal records (rap sheets) should only be available to law enforcement personnel: This country was founded on the idea of public records being available to all. If you break a law then the public has the right to know what you did and the right to conduct research to decide if they want you around or not.
 
shintao said:
I put the bar so high that a pedophile won't even think of touching an illegal aged child. So high that we could eradicate this behavior, or least drive it so far underground few will attempt it. I really want a child molester to be tormented with tortured one year for each victim, and then promptly executed and thrown into a dumpster with the trash (no burial or name plot).
Click to expand...

The problem come when some states classify an 18 year old as a pedophile when they have sex with a 17 year old who's birthday is only a few days after theirs. Now some states have it right in that they put an age difference in place before such an accucation can occur; i.e. there has to be at least 2 years of age between them before the older can be considered a sexual offender. But not all states do that.

I'll feel much better about such laws when we have those buffers and also allow courts to decide of the younger is close enough to being an "adult" to have made an informed decision.
 
Ohio has double buffers in place. For the most part, an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is in jeopardy of no criminal charges for the sex, though they could be charged with contributing to delinquency if there are other criminal acts taking place.

In Ohio (which is the state we're discuss here as that's the state considering this law) if the younger of the 2 is over the age of 13 (meaning they are 13 or older at the time of the sex) and the older is no more than 4 years older (4 years and 1 day is outside of this) then there is no charge whatsoever as they are considered to be consenting individuals. In this instance, a 15 year old could have sex with a 19 year old and the 19 year old would face no sex charges for that. Again, contributing to delinquency could be a potential charge depending on the entire case.

In addition, Ohio has set a 2nd buffer in that if the younger of the 2 is 13 but under the age of 16 and the offender is more than 4 years older than the victim but less than 10 years older than the victim then it is one type of charge, if the age difference is greater than 10 years then it's an entirely different set of charges & consequences. This double buffer helps to deal with potential issues such as a 15 year old and 20 year old dating and having consensual sex. While the 20 year is more than 4 years older than the 15 year old and they are guilty of a crime, more than likely they will be charged as a misdemeanor and not listed as a Registered Sex Offender.

However, if a 26 year old has consensual sex with a 15 year old then it is a felony and they will more than likely be forced to Register as a Sex Offender. By placing this double filter into the law, Ohio has a done a great job of handling many of the issues that other states face with their RSO laws.

So, the question is, should Ohio pass the law in the Original Post or not? Right now it's being reviewed and will more than likely (in some version) hit the Ohio Senate Committees in the next session.
 
TDZ said:
Ohio has double buffers in place. For the most part, an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is in jeopardy of no criminal charges for the sex, though they could be charged with contributing to delinquency if there are other criminal acts taking place.

In Ohio (which is the state we're discuss here as that's the state considering this law) if the younger of the 2 is over the age of 13 (meaning they are 13 or older at the time of the sex) and the older is no more than 4 years older (4 years and 1 day is outside of this) then there is no charge whatsoever as they are considered to be consenting individuals. In this instance, a 15 year old could have sex with a 19 year old and the 19 year old would face no sex charges for that. Again, contributing to delinquency could be a potential charge depending on the entire case.

In addition, Ohio has set a 2nd buffer in that if the younger of the 2 is 13 but under the age of 16 and the offender is more than 4 years older than the victim but less than 10 years older than the victim then it is one type of charge, if the age difference is greater than 10 years then it's an entirely different set of charges & consequences. This double buffer helps to deal with potential issues such as a 15 year old and 20 year old dating and having consensual sex. While the 20 year is more than 4 years older than the 15 year old and they are guilty of a crime, more than likely they will be charged as a misdemeanor and not listed as a Registered Sex Offender.

However, if a 26 year old has consensual sex with a 15 year old then it is a felony and they will more than likely be forced to Register as a Sex Offender. By placing this double filter into the law, Ohio has a done a great job of handling many of the issues that other states face with their RSO laws.

So, the question is, should Ohio pass the law in the Original Post or not? Right now it's being reviewed and will more than likely (in some version) hit the Ohio Senate Committees in the next session.
Click to expand...

Too bad Romeo and Juliet didn't live in Ohio, the Aloha State. He'd have been in prison and she would just be heartbroken instead of all suicidal.

Wait, no. I'm thinking of Iowa, the aloha state.
 
I don't know. I obviously understand the appeal of this legislation, but in many cases don't these individuals end up living with relatives after they leave prison (because it is nearly impossible for sex offenders to find employment)? While of course there is a very serious risk that if there are children in those home they will be in danger, at least there is someone to provide some form of supervision. That to me seems better than the alternative - which is homeless sex offenders wandering around the streets.

I don't think sex offenders should be able to live with just children, though. There may be other ways to protect against the danger as well.
 
So Krhazy, just because these individuals broke the law and are now dealing with employment issues, the children of family members should be put at risk so the offenders can have housing when they get out? Is that correct?

My personal opinion is that we have enough sewers for them all to live in. If that's not good enough for 'em then hand 'em a shovel and let 'em fall in the hole they dig.
 
In Oklahoma we include churches as a location sex offenders cannot live near so that would clear out a good bunch of the rural areas if it were a mile buffer
 
Shadow Serious said:
In Oklahoma we include churches as a location sex offenders cannot live near so that would clear out a good bunch of the rural areas if it were a mile buffer
Click to expand...

Since the poor neighborhoods have a church on every corner that'll clear out the inner cities too. Maybe the sex offenders can go live on Wall Street.
 
TDZ

3. We can't sentence them to life for just 1 or a few dozen attacks on one victim.

These are real laws?

Being certain one is a threat to children, I guess could take more than one indecent before we separate them forever.
 
TDZ said:
So Krhazy, just because these individuals broke the law and are now dealing with employment issues, the children of family members should be put at risk so the offenders can have housing when they get out? Is that correct?

My personal opinion is that we have enough sewers for them all to live in. If that's not good enough for 'em then hand 'em a shovel and let 'em fall in the hole they dig.
Click to expand...
My point is that a sex offender with a home and someone to supervise him is less of a danger to society than a sex offender homeless and wandering the streets. The well-being of the sex offender has little to do with this, though of course that is a concern as well that cannot constitutionally (and probably not even morally) be completely ignored.

At least if you know where a sex offender is you can more narrowly tailor restrictions.
 
Last edited:
I completely understand your point Krhazy, however I am just as concerned with where they aren't as I am with where they are. By knowing where they aren't I have a better idea of what may be a little safer environment to raise my children.

While I realize that the greatest risk of all is the pedophile/offender we don't know about yet, the ones we do know about pose enough of a risk to make me want to watch them closely.

Until the laws on Sex Offenders catch up with what the public really wants, it's going to be an uphill battle as a father to protect our kids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom