Child molesting vs. murder

If he is a Catholic priest and you have daughters, you are OK....
 
Why not have "Child Molester" tatooed on their forehead? Wouldn't that be better than a plate on their car? I mean, they could walk somewhere, couldn't they ....and no one would see their car or the plate.

Thats an interesting idea.
 
So again the scenario: There is a new neighbour moving in next to you.You can choose:

1. A bankrobber who killed 2 while robbing a bank.
2. A child molester who molested a few kids.

Which is your choice?
I'd probably choose the bank robber, because he wasn't a serial killer(he didn't kill for no reason at all), he was obviously more concerned with the money than killing the 2 people. In other words, I could actually hang out with my neighbor if that was the situation; I don't associate with child molesters.
 
Personalized question for Oniw:

Let's say you have a child. Would you rather have him killed or molested?
 
Ok, so by the same logic, you should have chosen the molester as a neighbour...
 
Not necessery. It depends on our sense of moral and whom we accept as a neighbour,not out of fear but preference...
 
Not necessery. It depends on our sense of moral and whom we accept as a neighbour,not out of fear but preference...

The preference would be based on the fear. Considering the high rate of recidivism of child molesters, a killer would make a better neighbour.
 
How do you know what individuals base their preferences? If I don't have children and I am not particulary affraid of being killed, I might as well make up my mind based on their look...
 
How do you know what individuals base their preferences? If I don't have children and I am not particulary affraid of being killed, I might as well make up my mind based on their look...

If you did not know their background, you'd probably get very little idea of it from their looks. However, in your place, I'd be curious about the killer but feel aversion for the molester.
 
I am watching Faux News (Why oh why?)and they are reporting that Wisconsin might require child molesters to have a green numberplate to easier identification for the public.

I was wondering, why not have a let's say black numberplate for murderers?

Also, whom would you rather have as a next door neighbour, a murderer (killed for money) or a child molester?

Violent peope ike that should be put in a registry and chipped to protect the non-violent population and children. People should KNOW they are dealing with a murderer or child molestor.
 
The preference would be based on the fear. Considering the high rate of recidivism of child molesters, a killer would make a better neighbour.

Hell no, it depends on the type of killer. A first degree murderer a better neighbor than a molestor? If you don't have kids you don't have to fear the molestor, but who wants to live next to someone who not only killed, but planned it all out and murdered in the first degree?

You assume that any of us should live around violent criminals, what if we decide we don't want to live around either?
 
People should KNOW they are dealing with a murderer or child molestor.

Well, that's what my post about. If we single out childmolesters but leave all other type of criminals alone, where is the equality?

On the other hand, if the criminal paid his debt to society, shouldn't we allow him a fresh start??
 
I am watching Faux News (Why oh why?)and they are reporting that Wisconsin might require child molesters to have a green numberplate to easier identification for the public.

I was wondering, why not have a let's say black numberplate for murderers?

Also, whom would you rather have as a next door neighbour, a murderer (killed for money) or a child molester?

It will attract vandalism and rammings.
 
That's insane. If they've served their time and the system is willing to let them out of jail, they should leave them alone. If they don't trust them to live as normal members of society, they shouldn't let them out in the first place.

What's even more disgusting is that it's sex offenders in general who get hounded for the rest of their lives. If a guy urinates in public, he can be hauled in as a sex offender (in Califonia, at least). So he's going to get tagged, followed, has to register himself on a publicly available database and inform his neighbors for the rest of his life just because he had to take a whiz? It's also my understanding that a woman who urinates in public gets a warning or a citation. ("In public" means anywhere not designated a restroom. Even if you go behind a thick clump of bushes miles away from anyone and hold a towel up as a curtain, it's still considered "in public". All that has to happen is for someone to have seen you enough to know what you're doing, even if they don't actually see your anatomy.)

Cops in some cities, for example Omaha, like to pretend that the arrestee was masturbating. You know what a guy has to do to finish peeing if he has prostate problems? I don't want to talk about it.
 
Well, that's what my post about. If we single out childmolesters but leave all other type of criminals alone, where is the equality?

On the other hand, if the criminal paid his debt to society, shouldn't we allow him a fresh start??

Sure we should allow them a fresh start, without the trust and privacy of course. We should track them forever.
 
Yeah. Although this choice is rather subjective, you might change your mind if you read about the mori bankrablas, where 8 innocents were MASSACRED with 47 bullets, just for money...

http://index.hu/politika/bulvar/moriper1206/

But of course you would take the childmolester over the bankrobbers...Again, subjective....They didn't kill for no reason, they killed for money... Understandable...

P.S.: I can actually understand/forgive a serial killer easier than a killer for money, because a serial killer just like a child molester is a mentally ill person with an urge to kill...
 
Last edited:
Actually I would wonder what type of sex offender. Was it Flashing, Attempted Rape, Date Rape, Sexual Harassment, Child Molestation, Urinating in public, public nudity, selling Play Boy to a 15 years old, Prostitution, Statuatory Rape.....?

Some of these are relatively harmless or easily reformed from. Some might have even been as simple as "He said/She said" or mooning. The person in questio coulf have had a psychotic break and is recovered now.

Not all Sex offenders are Pedophiles and not all Pedophiles are sex offenders. If being a Pedophile automatically made yopu a sex offender of one out of five people would be a sex offender, most of them never guilty of harm. I knew a Pedophile once who never ever touched a child. He never molested a single person, of course he was smart, soon as he found he had those urges he got treatment and found a true soulmate, a lovely woman with a rare genetic disorder that left her with the body of an eleven year old.
 
Back
Top