Rules for sex offenders on Halloween

Bob wrote:

If someone is a sex offender, I don't believe they should even be alive to be worried about. In cased where its a PROVEN open and shut case, I think all sex offenders and violent offenders should be put to death immediatly. No if's, ands or buts and absolutely no exceptions. Too many times innocent women, kids etc are murdered because of repeat offenders. Enough is enough.

Maladi wrote:

Are you even in support of executing sex offenders who were labeled as such from childhood "exploration". What I mean is a young boy and an equally young girl showing each other what they have, the girl's parents flipping out and turning in the boy.

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I think thats silly. What I mean is, and ONLY in cases where there is rock solid proof, a 30, 40 or 50 year old man going out and taking a 2 or 3 year old and raping, killing or otherwise. Or even a 11 or 12 year old.
Sometimes you can't just go on someone's say so. Alot of times there are ulterier motives. I'm not saying always, just sometimes. Thats why I said in ONLY cases where its proven rock solid. In those cases, shoot their sorry butts. A shotgun shell to their head is alot cheaper for the states than supporting them forever. Also, do you know how much safer the streets would be?
I dont care if its because they were raped as a kid, I dont care if its mental illness. Boo hoo for them. it's the kids I feel sorry for and the ones we must protect from nutbars who prey on them.

Maladi wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a flaw in your logic. You say ONLY if it's a PROVEN case. However, circumstances included, anyone who is a registered sex offender had a "proven" case. Also, not everyone who is a sex offender committed crimes against children. Quite a few of them committed crimes against adults.

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
Noone can be that dumb. I dont mean stupid, petty things like "mooning someone" and being a registered offender that way, or a 19 year old who has a record that way because he dated a 17 yr old. I think thats silly. I felt I made it really clear, as clear as anyone could. Violent crimes against kids.....and only then when there is irrefutible proof. DNA, wintnesses, confessions....not just one or the other. I'm not saying kill all of them. I'm not even saying all should be convicted as the law is sometimes ignorant.(like the 19 yr old arrested and being registered for dating a 17 yr old).....I am clearly talking about sick, grown individuals who does violent crimes against kids (or anyone for that matter.)
Furthermore, for all you religious people saying its a sin against God to kill the scum, doesn't the bible preach an eye for an eye? Also....if you could protect innocent kids from these vermon and you fail to do so, aren't you as bad as they are?
It's a FACT that in almost all cases of violent crimes against kids, women etc, it is by someone who's done it before and usually released. If they were never released and hung, shot, lethal injectionized or however you want to do it, the world would be safer for those who are innocent. Hopefully, I was clearer that time.