Admitted Pedophile Can't Be Within 30 Ft Of A Minor

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,245
Location
Edge's beanie closet
If anyone saw this guy recently on the news, he had a web site which had photos of children that he took- and he rated the kids. He also recommended the best places to find children. He admits to being sexually attracted to children (so if that is the very definition of a pedophile I guess he is one, even if he has never been caught engaging in any sexual abuse of children) but has never been convicted of any crimes related to pedophilia. So what should be done to keep him away from children-does this go too far? And what about the web site, they are discussing legislation to try to stop those types of sites (honestly I was rather shocked that he could have such a site-it was shut down). Parents have every right to protect their children and every obligation to do so.

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_6538624?source=rss

In issuing his order, Sandvig went significantly beyond the attorneys' request to protect children in Santa Clarita from McClellan.

In their petition, Patterson and Zinnanti had emphasized they were seeking to restrain "abhorrent" conduct, not free speech.

"We left a big, open space for the judge to write in what he thought was just," Zinnanti said.

But some legal experts criticized the judge's ruling and predicted it would be found unconstitutional.

"There's no showing he's done anything wrong ... You can't punish somebody unless you've proven they've done something wrong. You can't restrain them unless you can show there's a substantial likelihood they'll engage in harmful behavior," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor at Duke Law School.

Chemerinsky said that while society's concern over pedophiles is warranted, the order goes to "absurd lengths."

Bethan Tuttle, director of legislation and policy at the Washington branch of Mothers Against Sex Predators, also said the judge's order could set a troubling precedent if states begin to force pedophiles deeper into the shadows of society.

"As outrageous as his behavior has been, it doesn't warrant his expulsion from a state," Tuttle said. "He's not a criminal until he commits a crime, or there's legislation that formalizes society's objection to his behavior."

She said turning pedophiles into outcasts could backfire.

"The more you marginalize people, ... the more likely they are to actually commit crimes. They don't feel associated with the society that rejected them, so why keep society's rules?"

But on Friday, some Santa Clarita parents celebrated the judge's order.

Chris Campbell, who was at the courthouse with her 5- and 8-year-old daughters, said the order was a huge relief and reflected the community's stance against McClellan: "We're not going to take it."

And Jane Thompson, a co-founder of Mothers Against Sexual Predators of California, called the order a tremendous victory.

"Everyone was floored - in a good way," said Thompson, who attended the hearing and was among mothers who in June began circulating fliers with McClellan's picture at parks in the region.

"I feel like it is evidence that stay-at-home moms, or moms in general, can make a difference in enacting social change."

Lena Smyth - who formed the group with Thompson and is the wife of Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, R-Santa Clarita - said the order is a victory for the organization.

Assemblyman Smyth has begun drafting a bill that would criminalize "surrogate stalking" - or providing information that helps pedophiles perpetrate crimes against children.

On Friday, Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster, said she is working on emergency legislation that would make it a crime for any person to establish or maintain a Web site that gives pedophiles a way of locating and stalking children.
 
I found this on another site (www.news.com.au)



"McClellan has not been arrested or convicted in the US of a sex offence, is not a registered sex offender and has said he has not had sex with a child.

However, in interviews with the media he has told of his attraction to young girls and said he may have sex with them if it was legal."


How many pedophiles ever care about the sex with children being illegal, how many are stopped by that? So is society just supposed to accept that he will always be stopped by the fact that it is illegal? I guess he assumes they would just consent if it was legal :|
 
Hrm, while I agree that his sexual attraction to young girls is abbhorant and could possibly in the future go somewhere i think this is like a future crimes act in a way. He can take pictures of kids without peoples permission if they're in public. And even those his views are totally and morally wrong, so are plenty of others in this world that we have to let slide.

If he hasn't actually molested any child, or don't anything innappropriate with them or to himself around them, then I really don't think he should be charged with anything.

Also i do agree with extrocising them from society makes them think they live outside society and the law etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom