Are The Laws For Pedophiles Strict Enough?

Squawker · Mar 19, 2005

This is one very sad story that could have been prevented, if the neighborhood knew john couey was a convicted pedophile. I think
the police department should have sent out notices to the parents, when he was released into the community. These creeps lost all their rights when they violated a child.

Fla. Police Recover Missing Girl's Body
Mar 19, 6:25 PM (ET)

By MIKE BRANOM
HOMOSASSA, Fla. (AP) - The news this small community feared finally came Saturday: Police had found the body of 9-year-old Jessica Marie Lunsford, more than three weeks after she was snatched from her bedroom.
Citrus County Sheriff Jeff Dawsy said Jessica's body was found during an overnight search near a mobile home close to the house where she lived with her father and grandparents. A registered sex offender confessed Friday to the kidnapping and killing and told authorities where to look for the missing girl.
Jessica's father, Mark Lunsford, visited the search scene shortly after sunrise.
"Everyone heard me say, time after time, that she would be home," he said, his eyes hidden behind dark sunglasses. "She's home now."

Source

Batman · Mar 19, 2005

The police should send out notices that they're going to release him into the community again, do so, and then see what happens.

Squawker · Mar 20, 2005

Two offenses and they should lock them up for life. Did you see the creep in court? He looked like he was in his 70's. I heard he was a dope addict. What a worthless pile of excrement.

Urethra Franklin · Mar 21, 2005

No, they're not strict enough.
Close all catholic churches.

shuamort · Mar 21, 2005

It's not like it was this guy's second offense either:

Couey's record raised particular concern because of his more than three-decade-long criminal history, including 24 arrests on charges for burglary, carrying a concealed weapon, indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, larceny and drugs.

In 1991 Couey pleaded guilty to felony charges of sex offense against a child, fondling a child under 16, and lewd and lascivious conduct in Kissimmee, Florida.

He was also convicted of indecent exposure in 1987, according to records from the sheriff's office.

During a 1978 burglary, for which Couey was convicted, he was accused of grabbing a girl in her bedroom, placing his hand over her mouth and kissing her, Dawsy said.

Apparently, there was another case in 1991 but the court records are sealed.

I'm all for chemical castration, depo-provera, for male pedophiles, I just wish that it would work without question.

There is some debate about the effectiveness of chemical castration and the use of the drug depo-provera used in the process (it requires weekly injections). Dr. Fred Berlin of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins has stated that there is "no evidence that forcibly chemically castrating someone will work when that person does not want it to work."

Fantasea · Mar 21, 2005

As they are able to do by a democratic show of hands, the American Psychiatric Association may be poised, once again to confer legitimacy upon behavior that it once held anathema.

The following is an excerpt from one of their publications. The entire piece may be found at: http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

This latest article appears in the A.P.A.'s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.

The authors' conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm--and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children's backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is remembered positively, it may not be harmful at all.

And we wonder why we have trouble?

shuamort · Mar 21, 2005

Fantasea said:
As they are able to do by a democratic show of hands, the American Psychiatric Association may be poised, once again to confer legitimacy upon behavior that it once held anathema.

The following is an excerpt from one of their publications. The entire piece may be found at: http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

This latest article appears in the A.P.A.'s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.

The authors' conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm--and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children's backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is remembered positively, it may not be harmful at all.

And we wonder why we have trouble?

You're quoting from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals? :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin:

shuamort · Mar 21, 2005

Moreover, fantasea, did you read the disclaimer at the top?

Editor's note: Through publicity generated by this paper, and followed up by radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger and the Family Research Council, the American Psychological Association and (even more strongly) the American Psychiatric Association have issued statements clarifying that they reject the normalization of pedophilia. We applaud them for making such a strong public statement.

Squawker · Mar 21, 2005

American Psychiatric Association have issued statements clarifying that they reject the normalization of pedophilia. We applaud them for making such a strong public statement.

That was only after their stance became known by the public. They didn't change their view, they just did the PC thing.

shuamort · Mar 21, 2005

Squawker said:
That was only after their stance became known by the public. They didn't change their view, they just did the PC thing.

No, they didn't. Read the article and understand that they clarified (made clear, made understood) their position. They did not alter, change, made appeasable, their positon. Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference.

CrystalP · Aug 16, 2005

Catch 22

This debate is a catch 22. I can see it from both sides, but I beleive the government is right in what it is doing. The govenment are protecting minors whom have record when they were youger by not giving it to the public, and spoiling their chances of a new start. Should we not also have that right for pedophiles? I understand that then can never properly be rehabilitates fully, but they should at least be given a chance to redeem themselves. We give a chance to murderers, criminals and rapists why not pedophiles? I know that their crimes are the worst crime possible to a child and that the emotional damage can be forever lasting. But how can you choose who the government is able to save from a life in prision and who may change their life of child molestation into a human resourses manager, or a waitress. By giving out that information you will be condeming this male/woman to a life in solitude, becoming the sexual predator he is trying not to be or kill himself. You must at least give them a chance to try and change before you condem them to that exsistance.

debate_junkie · Aug 16, 2005

Re: Catch 22

CrystalP said:
This debate is a catch 22. I can see it from both sides, but I beleive the government is right in what it is doing. The govenment are protecting minors whom have record when they were youger by not giving it to the public, and spoiling their chances of a new start. Should we not also have that right for pedophiles? I understand that then can never properly be rehabilitates fully, but they should at least be given a chance to redeem themselves. We give a chance to murderers, criminals and rapists why not pedophiles? I know that their crimes are the worst crime possible to a child and that the emotional damage can be forever lasting. But how can you choose who the government is able to save from a life in prision and who may change their life of child molestation into a human resourses manager, or a waitress. By giving out that information you will be condeming this male/woman to a life in solitude, becoming the sexual predator he is trying not to be or kill himself. You must at least give them a chance to try and change before you condem them to that exsistance.

My only question to your post is this.. are YOU willing to risk your children (if you have them) or future children to give pedophiles a second chance? I'm not and I'm sure many other parents feel the same way.

Aren't we supposed to protect and defend those who cannot defend themselves? Name me a child who surely can protect themselves from a grown man or woman? Very few have gotten lucky and been able to make a big enough fuss to get away, but the majority end up like Jessica Lunsford or the Groene siblings.

It is a travesty that in America there is even a debate about this horrific act. Our children are dying, or are left scarred for life by callous individuals, and you wanna talk about second chances for the very monsters who are robbing them of the two precious things they have.. their lives and their innocence.

Are The Laws For Pedophiles Strict Enough?

Squawker

Professor

Batman

Active member

Squawker

Professor

Urethra Franklin

Folle

shuamort

Pundit-licious

Fantasea

shuamort

Pundit-licious

shuamort

Pundit-licious

Squawker

Professor

shuamort

Pundit-licious

CrystalP

New member

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare

Are The Laws For Pedophiles Strict Enough?

Professor

Active member

Professor

Folle

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Professor

Pundit-licious

New member

Worst Nightmare

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency