New Sex Offender Laws

Discussion in 'General Information & Discussion' started by SCHMAE, Apr 18, 2014.

  1. SCHMAE

    SCHMAE Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,979
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
  2. Tugela

    Tugela Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,588
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It is a stupid law, what is it supposed to achieve other than to make life a bit more difficult for sex offenders who have done their time and are going on with their lives? It doesn't make kids any safer.

    Being a taxi driver didn't enable this guy, it was just the job he happened to have at the time he committed his offence.
     
  3. LadyL

    LadyL Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,509
    Likes Received:
    355
    Trophy Points:
    83
    was the content of the text messages revealed in the trial? how did Justin end up in his cab?
     
  4. nomoresorrow

    nomoresorrow Active Member

    Messages:
    3,547
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "Named for 12-year-old homicide victim Justin Bloxom, of Stonewall, the bill restricts employment of convicted sex offenders and adds a life sentence for a twice-convicted sex offender whose victims are under age 18."

    and

    "If it clears the last hurdle, the law will prohibit registered sex offenders from driving taxi cabs, limousines and buses. It also would make service-type jobs, where entry would be required into homes, and the operation of carnival or amusement rides off-limits."

    ^ http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20100618/NEWS01/100618006/Justin-M-Bloxom-Act-clears-La-House

    I think it's a great law and I'm not in the least bit concerned about CSO's difficulty going on and living their lives. I'm far more concerned about victims getting the validation, support, and therapy they need in order to go on living their lives. Perhaps if SO's see this as making their life more difficult, they'll reconsider committing the offense in the first (or second, third, fourth...) place and go get help BEFORE they act.
     
  5. margarita25

    margarita25 Jessica Ridgeway. Never Forgotten.

    Messages:
    28,670
    Likes Received:
    32,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Respectfully disagree. Look at Ariel Castro, and how he used his school bus to abduct a child, who thankfully got away. Having access to public transportation gives these guys added tools imo. I sure as hell don't want to get in a cab with an RSO or ride a regular bus route with a driver who knows my locations. And as far as "doing their time", I'm not sure there is such a thing. For the victims, they live with the effects their whole lives. I could care less about RSO's lives being difficult. They should go live in a hole somewhere, not have an additional position of control over the general public. jmo
     
  6. threecrazykids

    threecrazykids Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm not sure what my opinion is on this...I guess I have mixed feelings. On one hand I clearly don't want to do anything that is going to give RSO's more opportunities to commit a crime.
    However, on the other hand, I don't know that eliminating specific jobs is going to lower the probability of them committing an offense...KWIM? They just couldn't do it while working in THAT job.

    I agree IN THEORY that this would make specific areas employment off limits - but to back that do they have any records of the # of RSO's who were in those positions to begin with? That by being in those positions it enabled them "better" access or opportunities to commit their crimes?

    Society has clearly placed RSO's #1 on the "most heinous crimes" list. And I agree, they are. HOWEVER, I bet if you'd asked someone who was in their home when a burglary was committed, I'm guessing those people will NEVER feel safe in their home again. Wondering when the next person could break in and harm them. That's a lifetime of fear and ramifications as well.

    Do we then put all people charged with B&E, robbery, theft, etc. on the same restrictions?

    IMO you have to look at the root of the crime and what drives them to drive laws in an effort of protecting society in general. I'm not sure that restricting employment to particular areas necessarily makes anyone safer.

    I'm gonna have to think a bit more on this one...:waitasec:
     
  7. marlywings

    marlywings Former Member

    Messages:
    12,283
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with the above margarita!

    An Aussie case....

    Australia-Sydney taxi driver charged with raping 10yr old hearing impaired girl - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
     
  8. SCHMAE

    SCHMAE Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,979
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    While I can agree I'm not sure how necessary a law like this is, I would think any inconvenience bestowed upon the RSO's is a step in the right direction. I personally think there should be no such thing as an RSO. Any SO who preys on children should be in prison for life ! But since that is likely never going to be the case, removing some of their benefits of a good life on the outside is a good thing.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice