Discussion»Questions»Legal» Should parents of minors be charged criminally if they* knowingly get into relationships with registered sex offenders who previously
Yes, victimised children.. totally. There's a reason sex under a certain age is deemed to be non-consensual - kids just do NOT have the experience of the world and how it works and/or the maturity to fully take on board the risk factors and consequences of things.. they get into trouble because they cannot fully take on board all the relevant factors..
People can argue all they like... but that's how it is... and the law agrees...
Re a sex-offender.. we have to remember that they are able to do what they do because they are really good at manipulating children..they threaten, they bribe, they flatter.. and we KNOW that kids are inherently easy to manipulate.
How do we know this? Because much of what parenting is about is based on manipulation - WE get them to do what we want, to follow our chosen path for them, for their well-being.. How we do this is by persuasion, mild threats, (if you don't do this then blah blah) and bribes and nagging etc..
SO kids are never ever, ever to blame.. it matters not whether the claim is that they led the sex offended on... doesn't matter if a 13 year old wears a short skirt or hot-pants this does NOT mean they want or know the consequences of flirting, or encouraging ANY adult in a way that the other person believes is sexual.. they are VERY often wrong... (I could tell so many stories... ) But the fact remains that the sex offender is an adult and the child does not know about that... why would they? As an adult we DO have maturity and experience of the world... we can think of all the dangers and consequences... and we have the responsibility to act within the law and to say no.
If you think about it the fact kids are not fully formed in terms of intellect, maturity, knowing how to make smart choices... this is exactly why they are considered minors and have parents... because if left to their own devices kids probably wouldn't survive beyond toddlerhood! Almost every parent there is still faces this need to guide and to try to prevent kids seriously ruining their lives or getting into something too dangerous...
You mentioned parents.. I wasn't sure if you felt that parents were responsible for protecting their children..yes they are but we have already said how sneaky sex offenders and pedophiles are, they use kids naivety against them.. 'Don't tell your mother what happened, because if you do I will kill your brother.' or, 'You won't be believed and you will be taken away to prison.' Kids don't have the tools we do to deal with this..But the point too is that in this way parents don't always know.. In this world, especially today, we cannot know what our kids are doing 24/7 - and kids are told/encouraged to lie.
So often parents don't know.. this is how it is, always has been. So, so, so many kids in the past were abused for example by priests, neighbours, uncles etc. People the parents trusted... and again these offenders are great at lying and manipulating to get what they want...
Think about how many times kids get drunk without their parents knowing.. or skip school or.. well a thousand things kids do... and this is exactly the same way that kids get abused.. Make no mistake tho, it is always abuse.
Tom Jackson has pointed out to me (very correctly, in fact), that my use of the word "they" in the question was ambiguous, making it appear to some that I meant it to refer to the minor children. I thought it was understood that I meant the parents. Based on how I worded the question, and how I thought anyone and everyone would understand it, in retrospect and with new insight as provided by Tom Jackson, my rebuttals to your answers were unfair. I have edited the question to clear up further or future confusion.
I apologize to you for the misunderstanding I caused.
Short answer...cut the offenders balls off and chances are he will not have any relationships. For women sex offenders, the guy should be charged and the children removed.
You only mentioned how men should face consequences, not female offenders. Notwithstanding what you've said about ovaries, you did not mention any sanction against them. ~
Not all sexual desire derives from testicles. The mind is a sex organ also, so removing the testicles doesn't quell all possible dangers of a sex offender. ~
Tattoo PEDOPHILE in some hard-to-hide location, like right across the forehead. Or brand a big P on both cheeks. Mothers won't be drawn to them, no matter how naïve.
There are mixed reports on chemical castration I understand... some say it's associated with reduced rates of re-offending, others say that as much of the desire to do that is in the head, it doesn't solve anything and one can harm kids sexually without actually .... well you know. Women offenders should be punished, definitely. It's not right. Interestingly, this is kinda one of my areas of interest - sexology. I have conversed with many men and women who were abused, men abused by women, men abused by men etc. and quite often, the men report that they enjoyed it...they seem to feel less often that they were victims. I believe they were still and that there are consequences that they seem not to quite see. For instance men who were abused by men or women often have shall we say unusual tastes and desires after the abuse. I am not judging them on this but it is true to say that from a human perspective this can and does seem to lead to two things.. perpetuation of abuse; they often want to repeat the abuse either as victim or abuser and they also tend to have quite extreme tastes which make it harder to find partners...
I think it should be the offender who gets charged. Aren't most ordered not to be eithin a certain amount of feet of children....ie. cannot live near a school or playground etc. Wouldn't this apply to having a child in your home? Arrest them for being to close to a child.
I do think it could be used as justification to reverse a custudy order for the protection of the child.
I think they should but legally I don't believe they do. I do think legally if it can be proven the parent knew for certain then there should be a penalty. It should also depend on the type of sexual offender....ie. rape/molestation of a young child vs statutory rape which could have just been an 18yr old and 17yr old.
I do think legally if it can be proven the parent knew for certain then there should be a penalty. It should also depend on the type of sexual offender....ie. rape/molestation of a young child vs statutory rape which could have just been an 18yr old and 17yr old.
You did read in the question the words "knowingly" and "who previously victimized children", right?
Tom Jackson has pointed out to me (very correctly, in fact), that my use of the word "they" in the question was ambiguous, making it appear to some that I meant it to refer to the minor children. I thought it was understood that I meant the parents. Based on how I worded the question, and how I thought anyone and everyone would understand it, in retrospect and with new insight as provided by Tom Jackson, my rebuttals to your answers were unfair. I have edited the question to clear up further or future confusion.
I apologize to you for the misunderstanding I caused.
My more lengthy explanation which I spent a lot of time on has been deleted. Can't help but get the feeling more and more that I am not wanted on here.
Not until the pervert commits a crime. I am pretty sure that molesters cannot be near children. There are boundaries given. Something like 500 or a 1,000 feet or some such.
So, if you are dating a molester, you need to keep your kids at bay. You can lose your kids. And if you date a molester and care more about the dating than the kids, you don't deserve kids anyway.
Adaydreambeliever 