God forgives sex offenders. Society doens't.

[gnik]

God will forgive any sin, if the person is truly sorry and willing to change.

Society labels people who break some laws without any hope of things being seen for who they are, and not what they did once.

There are many examples of good people making a mistake and having the label "sex offender" on them for the rest of there life.

A student doesn't like a teacher, so the claim they did something sexual, the teacher then can no longer work anywhere even if it is found to be false.

One instance occurred where a boy turned 16 and some 16 year old girls sent him naked pics of him. he didn't know and forgot about the messages. One of the girls mentioned what they did to her parents who called the cops. they took his phone, saw that the messages were not open, looked at them and arrested him for having child pornography. He now is a registered sex offender for doing absolutely nothing.

Now many sex offenders are bad people, but the ones that change and never do anything and don't have that sort of interest anymore has to live with this label that makes them not allowed to go to some places, do some things. many jobs wont hire a person who is a sex offender, no matter how low risk or how many years ago it was.

God on the other hand will forgive and let go of the sin. Yet so many people argue that God is evil, when society does so much worse then God has ever done.

[Bust Nak]

God will forgive any sin, if the person is truly sorry and willing to change.

I am not sure that's true. Isn't the condition for forgiveness accepting Jesus as a savior and not willingness to change?

Society labels people who break some laws without any hope of things being seen for who they are, and not what they did once.

There are many examples of good people making a mistake and having the label "sex offender" on them for the rest of there life...

God on the other hand will forgive and let go of the sin. Yet so many people argue that God is evil, when society does so much worse then God has ever done.

Registering sex offender is about protecting the vulnerable, not about not forgiving. The only one who can forgive is the people the sex offender harmed.

[gnik]

God will forgive any sin, if the person is truly sorry and willing to change.

I am not sure that's true. Isn't the condition for forgiveness accepting Jesus as a savior and not willingness to change?

That does depend on how one interprets the Bible. But in either case, God is willing to forgive.

Society labels people who break some laws without any hope of things being seen for who they are, and not what they did once.

There are many examples of good people making a mistake and having the label "sex offender" on them for the rest of there life...

God on the other hand will forgive and let go of the sin. Yet so many people argue that God is evil, when society does so much worse then God has ever done.

Registering sex offender is about protecting the vulnerable, not about not forgiving. The only one who can forgive is the people the sex offender harmed.

Lets assume that a person X lives to be 100. At age 20 person X gets drunk and makes a big mistake. The person gets charged. He does his time. gets help, stops drinking. Lets say this takes 10 years. If the person never does anything like this ever again, person X now has 70 years where he is restricted in what he can do, may have trouble getting and keeping a job, and his family has this connection with a sex offender not. Is this fair? Does society truly believe that a person can't change even after 80 years? This isn't to protect others. This is to punish someone for the rest of their life.

Shouldn't we have some point where we give a person a clean slate? Maybe after 20 years without any problems or repeat offenses?

[Bust Nak]

That does depend on how one interprets the Bible. But in either case, God is willing to forgive.

Lets assume that a person X lives to be 100. At age 20 person X gets drunk and makes a big mistake. The person gets charged. He does his time. gets help, stops drinking. Lets say this takes 10 years. If the person never does anything like this ever again, person X now has 70 years where he is restricted in what he can do, may have trouble getting and keeping a job, and his family has this connection with a sex offender not. Is this fair?

Of course it's fair - the same rules apply to everyone. But I have a feeling what's not what you were asking for, perharps you could rephrase your question? I can see how the rules could take more individual circumstance into consideration.

Does society truly believe that a person can't change even after 80 years? This isn't to protect others. This is to punish someone for the rest of their life.

Some people change and some don't. Working who does and who don't is far from easy.

Shouldn't we have some point where we give a person a clean slate? Maybe after 20 years without any problems or repeat offenses?

Maybe, but how can you tell if these 20 years without reoffending is a sign of reform or a sign of the effectiveness of the sex-register to protect the vulnerable?

Can you imagine the public outrage if an ex-sex-offender after 20 years, where put into situration with easy access to the vulnerable and then go on to reoffend?

[gnik]

That does depend on how one interprets the Bible. But in either case, God is willing to forgive.

Lets assume that a person X lives to be 100. At age 20 person X gets drunk and makes a big mistake. The person gets charged. He does his time. gets help, stops drinking. Lets say this takes 10 years. If the person never does anything like this ever again, person X now has 70 years where he is restricted in what he can do, may have trouble getting and keeping a job, and his family has this connection with a sex offender not. Is this fair?

Of course it's fair - the same rules apply to everyone. But I have a feeling what's not what you were asking for, perharps you could rephrase your question? I can see how the rules could take more individual circumstance into consideration.

Does society truly believe that a person can't change even after 80 years? This isn't to protect others. This is to punish someone for the rest of their life.

Some people change and some don't. Working who does and who don't is far from easy.

Shouldn't we have some point where we give a person a clean slate? Maybe after 20 years without any problems or repeat offenses?

Maybe, but how can you tell if these 20 years without reoffending is a sign of reform or a sign of the effectiveness of the sex-register to protect the vulnerable?

Can you imagine the public outrage if an ex-sex-offender after 20 years, where put into situration with easy access to the vulnerable and then go on to reoffend?

I can assure you, if a sex offender is on the streets and wants to reoffend, it's not hard at all.

I'm not saying that all sex offenders should just be forgiven like that. But we rate sex offenders by likelihood to reoffend based on how many times we know they have offended, and what the offense is. Maybe just offer this to low risk sex offenders.

The question is this, I think...

Is it better for potential victims to be protected at the expense of a low risk sex offender's rights, or to give the person a chance to get there life back, knowing if they mess up again, there will be no more chances.

[Bust Nak]

I can assure you, if a sex offender is on the streets and wants to reoffend, it's not hard at all.

Sure, but we are talking about sex-offender register here, it's about being give jobs with easy access to children.

I'm not saying that all sex offenders should just be forgiven like that. But we rate sex offenders by likelihood to reoffend based on how many times we know they have offended, and what the offense is. Maybe just offer this to low risk sex offenders.

Sure, ideally any criminal should be locked up for the exact amount of time for his reform, then his criminal record wipe clean. The problem is working out what that time should be, and what happen should someone makes a mistake in determining when someone is reformed.

Is it better for potential victims to be protected at the expense of a low risk sex offender's rights, or to give the person a chance to get there life back, knowing if they mess up again, there will be no more chances.

I think it's clearly better to protect potential victims at the expense of low risk sex offenders - some mistakes are most costly then others.

[gnik]

I can assure you, if a sex offender is on the streets and wants to reoffend, it's not hard at all.

Sure, but we are talking about sex-offender register here, it's about being give jobs with easy access to children.

How many jobs can you name that would exist everywhere where there is no children ever? Not to mention it effects more then just jobs. It effects where they live, where they can go, and what they can do. A sex offender, by what some people want, would not be allowed to go to a swimming area, a park, any amusement park, any fair.

I'm not saying that all sex offenders should just be forgiven like that. But we rate sex offenders by likelihood to reoffend based on how many times we know they have offended, and what the offense is. Maybe just offer this to low risk sex offenders.

Sure, ideally any criminal should be locked up for the exact amount of time for his reform, then his criminal record wipe clean. The problem is working out what that time should be, and what happen should someone makes a mistake in determining when someone is reformed.

I don't think all crimes should be forgiven by law. The problem here is that there is a blanket term that is stuck on anyone who does any wide range of things, many of which are minor things. A murderer can kill several people, go to jail, then get out in 20 years and return to a normal life style. a sex offender doesn't get this.

Is it better for potential victims to be protected at the expense of a low risk sex offender's rights, or to give the person a chance to get there life back, knowing if they mess up again, there will be no more chances.

I think it's clearly better to protect potential victims at the expense of low risk sex offenders - some mistakes are most costly then others.

I think it's better to give people a the opertunity to change. It's been said that if you are told you are something long enough, you become it. How many people make a mistake and end up as sex offenders and then repeat crimes because they are stuck with a permanent label?

[Bust Nak]

How many jobs can you name that would exist everywhere where there is no children ever?

Doesn't matter if there are children around, just not "access" to them, like babysitter, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, school bus driver, where someone have a job related reason to be alone with children without other supervision.

Not to mention it effects more then just jobs. It effects where they live, where they can go, and what they can do. A sex offender, by what some people want, would not be allowed to go to a swimming area, a park, any amusement park, any fair.

Seems over the top. These areas are not places one would be alone with children.

I don't think all crimes should be forgiven by law. The problem here is that there is a blanket term that is stuck on anyone who does any wide range of things, many of which are minor things. A murderer can kill several people, go to jail, then get out in 20 years and return to a normal life style. a sex offender doesn't get this.

While I think there is good reason to not put certain crime on the register, given the difficult in a personalised term, I don't see how can get away from blanket terms, even if the terms are different for different crime. And people's criminal record is for life and that too limits what people can do.

I think it's better to give people a the opertunity to change. It's been said that if you are told you are something long enough, you become it. How many people make a mistake and end up as sex offenders and then repeat crimes because they are stuck with a permanent label?

I am guessing next to none?

By the way, it seems that the sex offender register is open to the public in the States. Seems like a bad idea. It should be on a need to know basis for employers in certain sectors, just like the criminal records.

[gnik]

How many jobs can you name that would exist everywhere where there is no children ever?

Doesn't matter if there are children around, just not "access" to them, like babysitter, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, school bus driver, where someone have a job related reason to be alone with children without other supervision.

Not to mention it effects more then just jobs. It effects where they live, where they can go, and what they can do. A sex offender, by what some people want, would not be allowed to go to a swimming area, a park, any amusement park, any fair.

Seems over the top. These areas are not places one would be alone with children.

I don't think all crimes should be forgiven by law. The problem here is that there is a blanket term that is stuck on anyone who does any wide range of things, many of which are minor things. A murderer can kill several people, go to jail, then get out in 20 years and return to a normal life style. a sex offender doesn't get this.

While I think there is good reason to not put certain crime on the register, given the difficult in a personalised term, I don't see how can get away from blanket terms, even if the terms are different for different crime. And people's criminal record is for life and that too limits what people can do.

I think it's better to give people a the opertunity to change. It's been said that if you are told you are something long enough, you become it. How many people make a mistake and end up as sex offenders and then repeat crimes because they are stuck with a permanent label?

I am guessing next to none?

By the way, it seems that the sex offender register is open to the public in the States. Seems like a bad idea. It should be on a need to know basis for employers in certain sectors, just like the criminal records.

Well, that is part of what I'm arguing about. It's not just that a person has it on their record, but literally everyone can see it. There is an app that shows where sex offenders life.

[bluethread]

[quote="gnik"]
I don't think all crimes should be forgiven by law. The problem here is that there is a blanket term that is stuck on anyone who does any wide range of things, many of which are minor things. A murderer can kill several people, go to jail, then get out in 20 years and return to a normal life style. a sex offender doesn't get this. [quote]

Who gets to determine which crimes should be forgiven by law and which should not? I also think that a murderer can "return to a normal life style", while the sex offender can't. However, I think that is a matter of being too gracious to the murder, not being too strick on the sex offender.