Replies

One of the things IL actually does right is the on-line sex offender database. It's really easy to use. Just enter the city or county and it will bring up all offenders. Most have pictures and addresses. It doesn't list the exact crime, but it does say something like, "victim under 18" and I think it also lists under 13, over 18, and family member.

Several years ago we had this man working at our company. He seemed normal and by that I mean you wouldn't cross the street to get away from him. Clean cut, about 28 years old, was engaged to a pretty girl. He got fired because he got caught looking at internet porn- not once, but three times!! Right about this time is when IL put thier sex offender data base on-line. My friend had e-mailed me the address and I was looking at it one afternoon. The very last name for our county was this guy who had gotten fired for looking at porn! I called over a co-worker and she knew where he lived and verfied that it was his address. It was pretty creepy.

I see a huge difference between Under-18, Under-15, Under-13. I also (sigh) see a difference between offenders who merely looked at or collected some cheesecake-style borderline teen porn and the Westerfield types who are aroused by little kids--but the law doesn't make that distinction, most places.

Under-13 offenders ought to be executed, poof. Gone. Blow them away. Make it fast and humane and then drive a stake through their hearts, burn the corpse, dismember the remains, scatter them on a glacier. They are dangerous vampires. Violent rapists likewise, whether the victim is 8 or 80. The species does not need anyone who is sexually excited by doing physical harm to the reproductive or mental health of other people.

We can't heal these twisted minds or make these people safe to be around, and we have nowhere to put them where they can't victimize somebody. So off 'em. (Putting rapists in with other prisoners doesn't reduce the rape rate, it would seem--it merely gives them a more limited pool of victims.)

Under 13, few girls (or boys, for that matter) are physically mature enough to have even consensual sexual intercourse without being damaged physically or mentally. Between 18 and 15, however, some girls can pass for being of age and I believe that neurologically normal girls of this age can consent. (They do, far too often and too readily.) I read recently of a man who had been convicted of rape of a 15 year old he picked up in a BAR. Whether the sexual activity was consensual or not, I found reasonable his argument that he thought she was of age, given the venue of their meeting. She also LEFT WITH HIM to go somewhere else. Is that consent? If he hurt her against his will, he still committed a crime--but she consented to something when she voluntarily left the bar with him!