# Sometimes, reality is weirder than fiction



## Bruno@MT (Nov 2, 2010)

I did not find an English language source for this so you have to take me at my word, but this is too insane for words. Recently a paedophile was convicted after a relapse during which he raped a teenage girl. Now, I don't see why he was out in the first place. As far as I am concerned, he should have never been releaed again. To be honest, he I think he should have been crucified or burned at the stake, but living in a state where that has gone out of fashion, I'd settle for life without parole.

However, the real kicker is this: the girl he raped was the teenage daughter of the couple who took him in to help him get back on his feet. Because it was so hard for a convicted child molester to get some stability...
W... T... F...????

I mean, how ****ed up can you be?
Inviting a convicted child molester into your home, with your 16 year old daughter?. Words can't begin to describe what I think.

The only reason I could come up with for inviting such a person is that it would save you the trouble of having to hunt him down before you nail him to the wall for some introspection, followed by castration with a rusty spoon. Other than that.... I can't come up with anything. Too bad the daughter had to pay with her innocence for their monumental naivety and stupidity.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 2, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I did not find an English language source for this so you have to take me at my word, but this is too insane for words. Recently a paedophile was convicted after a relapse during which he raped a teenage girl. Now, I don't see why he was out in the first place. As far as I am concerned, he should have never been releaed again. To be honest, he I think he should have been crucified or burned at the stake, but living in a state where that has gone out of fashion, I'd settle for life without parole.
> 
> However, the real kicker is this: the girl he raped was the teenage daughter of the couple who took him in to help him get back on his feet. Because it was so hard for a convicted child molester to get some stability...
> W... T... F...????
> ...


It is sad yes, but some people still believe that rehabilitation works and that some people believe that a person can change. This is true in many cases and false in many other cases. 
Sometimes the best lessons are the hardest ones of all.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 2, 2010)

As awefull as it may sound, child molesters are still citizens with the same rights, and until a first offense is made, by law, an unforgivable crime, people are going to walk away after serving their sentence. I do understand the gut impulse to want to end their lives, but these people all have families and laws to protect them. Its going to be a big issue in election years to come. 
Sean


----------



## KELLYG (Nov 2, 2010)

Touch of Death.  

I really understand what you are saying but a 16 year old girl is going to have to pay, for the rest of her life, for something stupid her parents did.  I think that it is insanity to invite someone in your home that was convicted of a sex crime, especially when you have a young person in the house.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 2, 2010)

Over half of the paedophiles are convicted again after a relapse. I once read that during the course of their entire life, over 80 % relapse. So spare me the notion about them having paid their debt to society. It is virtually a given that they will relapse. Even if they can hold their urges for a while, a stress situation will kick them back.

I think we should accept that a paedophile is something that you are, and that releasing them just means giving them a second chance at making new victims.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Nov 2, 2010)

See, the problem is you are lumping them all in together.  In this case, it was a bad thing.  But you seem to be advocating locking up everyone convicted of a sex offense for life.  What about the 18 year old that got caught with his 17 year old girlfriend?  What about two 14 year olds?  They would be sex offenders both.  Lock them up forever?  People want to makes these broad, sweeping laws based on gross generalizations.  A few years back in Minnesota I think it was, two 16 year olds got caught.  The girl's father went to the police and demanded the boy be brought up on charges as a sex offender.  The DA was happy to do so... and also sent the police to pick up the girl and charge her.  Yes, the 40 year old with the 12 year old needs to be locked away.  But not every situation is so black and white.


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2010)

Not necessarily.  Bruno is specifically mentioning paedophiles.

All paedophiles are sex offenders, but not all sex offenders are paedophiles.  

If two 14 year olds have sex, that is not paedophilia, nor is the 18 y.o. with a 17 y.o. lover, nor is the person that that took a leak in an alley.

As far as people inviting paedophiles to live in one's home when there are young people about, the incident he cites is not isolated.  It has happened here in NH as well.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/fugitive-pedophile-gets-20-years


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 3, 2010)

There is a clear distinction between 'sex offender' and 'paedophile'.

A sensei I sometimes trained with was a sex offender. One night while drunk he answered the call of nature and peed against a police car. With the cops sitting inside.

Ditto for statutory rape. An 18 year old have sex with his 17 year old should not even get to the court imo. That is why we have laws which take the age difference into account and not just the arbitrary age of 18. And even in the US they call it 'statutory rape' instead of just 'rape' or 'paedophilia'.

An adult man in his late 20s early 30s having sex with a 16 year old against her will... that is paedophilia. And when I mentioned the extremely high recidivism rates, I did not include all sex offenders like the sensei I mentioned. Tha percentage are really just the guys who enjoy fondling / having sex with underage boys and girls.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 3, 2010)

I understand the desire to lock these pedaphiles up and throw away the key.  The problem is that they serve the sentence they were given.  They have paid thier dues, according to our courts.  You can't just lock up %100 of them because you believe most will re-offend, as tempting as that would be.  Until there is a guaranteed way to know who will reoffend and who will not, we must release these people after thier sentence is done.

Now the parents who took in a pedophile with a young woman in the house...how stupid can a parent be?!  You'd think common sense would be a little bit more...well common.


----------



## Onyx (Nov 3, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> There is a clear distinction between 'sex offender' and 'paedophile'.


 
Not when it comes to the law, at least here in the US. Any law that applies to paedophiles applies to all sex offenders.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 5, 2010)

Onyx said:


> Not when it comes to the law, at least here in the US. Any law that applies to paedophiles applies to all sex offenders.



In the US this is true. Common sense has long been absent in the US judicial system. (No offense. Every country has its peculiarities. Belgium has a couple of silly things as well) But I digress.

Even if the laws are the same, they do not illicit the same reaction.
If my neigbor was a 'sex offender' Id check which kind he was. I have no problems with public urination. Well, I don't think it is a good thing, but hardly worth the label 'sex offender'. Whereas if my neighbor was the other kind, I'd tell him in no uncertain terms that the police would not be his biggest problem if I ever caught him doing something naughty.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 5, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I understand the desire to lock these pedaphiles up and throw away the key.  The problem is that they serve the sentence they were given.  They have paid thier dues, according to our courts.  You can't just lock up %100 of them because you believe most will re-offend, as tempting as that would be.  Until there is a guaranteed way to know who will reoffend and who will not, we must release these people after thier sentence is done.



Interesting. Reasonable doubt is the criterium beyond which someone can be convicted of a crime. The relapse rate, measured over their lifetime, for people who actually molested a kid, is 80% to 90%. Therefore proof of the first offense is imo good enough to count as reasonable assumption that he'll make a victim again.


----------

