Sex offender ordered by judge to post signs on his house, car

Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

New member
There's something fundamentally wrong with all this hooraw over "What can we do about sex offenders after they get out of jail?". Apparently the concern is that they will likely keep soliciting little boys or raping women or whatever their crime was. I've heard that recidivism rates are very high for such sex crimes, and people are right to be concerned.

But what's the problem? There already exists a perfectly good institution to deal with people likely to repeat their crimes. It's the institution you just let him out of: JAIL. If he's likely to grab and abuse another little girl or whatever, then WHY IN HELL DID YOU LET HIM OUT OF JAIL???

I'm really directing that question at the judges who imposed a sentence that was plainly too short. The purpose of jail or prison, is to (a) punish the guy for what he did, and (b) keep him away from society, thus making society safer, until he changes his ways and no longer is a threat to that society.

There's nothing new or startling about this. That's always been the purpose of prison. My only question is, Since virtually everyone agrees that they guy is likely to strike again after he gets out, then why do we keep imposing sentences that let him out while he's still likely to strike again?

We do not owe the guy freedom from jail. HE owes US a lifestyle where he no longer molests or rapes little kids. The only thing we "owe", is to society itself: We owe them a justice system that protects them from sex offenders. If this guy wants to molest kids, badly enough to actually do it, then we owe society the DUTY to keep him in the slammer for as long as he wants to molest kids. And how long that is, is up to him.

I'm sorry it may take a long time for him to get his act together and quit raping babies. That may mean he'll spend a LONG time in jail. But to get down to the crux of the matter, that's his problem, not ours. Our problem is to make sure no more kids get raped or molested... and especially to make sure that people who did it once, never do it again.

If the molester wants to help us assure that, that would be very nice, and he can get out of jail sooner. But if he doesn't want to (and recidivism statistics show that most don't want to), then we have a way of dealing with him, called jail. If he doesn't like it, that's too damned bad. Keeping society safe from him, is more important than restoring freedom to someone who will rape and abuse us. We have to start electing judges who impose LONG sentences on these sex offenders... long enough that we don't have to worry about them after they get out.

As for this guy who has to put signs on his car and house... if he doesn't like it, he can always go back into jail. No signs required there. He should thank the judge for his leniency (too much leniency if you ask me) in letting him out while he's statistically likely to molest more little boys, and give him the alternative of posting signs. If he doesn't like that, there's always the other alternative.

--------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341268,00.html

Sex Offender Ordered by Judge to Post Signs

Tuesday, March 25, 2008
AP/The Hutchinson News

As part of his probation, LeRoy Schad, 72, must have signs on his Hudson, Kan., home. He also has to put a sign on his car when he goes to counseling.
HUDSON, Kan. — Under a judge's order, a man who has admitted molesting a boy has posted signs around his house and a decal on his car proclaiming that he is a sex offender.

1_61_032508_sexsigns3.jpg


The hand-painted signs reading "A Sex Offender Lives Here" are posted on all four sides of Leroy Schad's white house in this central Kansas town of only about 150 people. His vehicle has a large decal with bold yellow lettering reading "Sex Offender In This Car."

Schad, 72, was originally charged with four counts of taking indecent liberties with a 9-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy in 2005. He was allowed to plead guilty in March 2007 to a lesser charge of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child, and the original charges were dismissed.

District Judge Ron Svaty sentenced him to five years of probation and house arrest, and ordered him to post the signs during his punishment.
 
The recidivism rate of pedophiles and the horrific nature of their crime make people work towards more permanent solutions to the problem. I say we should just keep child rapists in prison.
 
Damocles said:
The recidivism rate of pedophiles and the horrific nature of their crime make people work towards more permanent solutions to the problem.
Click to expand...
Unsuccessfully, obviously.

When they've found a cure that works well and reliably, then fine, we can start using that instead of keeping the sex offenders in the clink. So far, we've found NO such cure.

I say we should just keep child rapists in prison.
Click to expand...
I second the motion.
 
Little-Acorn said:
There's something fundamentally wrong with all this hooraw over "What can we do about sex offenders after they get out of jail?". Apparently the concern is that they will likely keep soliciting little boys or raping women or whatever their crime was. I've heard that recidivism rates are very high for such sex crimes, and people are right to be concerned.

But what's the problem? There already exists a perfectly good institution to deal with people likely to repeat their crimes. It's the institution you just let him out of: JAIL. If he's likely to grab and abuse another little girl or whatever, then WHY IN HELL DID YOU LET HIM OUT OF JAIL???

I'm really directing that question at the judges who imposed a sentence that was plainly too short. The purpose of jail or prison, is to (a) punish the guy for what he did, and (b) keep him away from society, thus making society safer, until he changes his ways and no longer is a threat to that society.

There's nothing new or startling about this. That's always been the purpose of prison. My only question is, Since virtually everyone agrees that they guy is likely to strike again after he gets out, then why do we keep imposing sentences that let him out while he's still likely to strike again?

We do not owe the guy freedom from jail. HE owes US a lifestyle where he no longer molests or rapes little kids. The only thing we "owe", is to society itself: We owe them a justice system that protects them from sex offenders. If this guy wants to molest kids, badly enough to actually do it, then we owe society the DUTY to keep him in the slammer for as long as he wants to molest kids. And how long that is, is up to him.

I'm sorry it may take a long time for him to get his act together and quit raping babies. That may mean he'll spend a LONG time in jail. But to get down to the crux of the matter, that's his problem, not ours. Our problem is to make sure no more kids get raped or molested... and especially to make sure that people who did it once, never do it again.

If the molester wants to help us assure that, that would be very nice, and he can get out of jail sooner. But if he doesn't want to (and recidivism statistics show that most don't want to), then we have a way of dealing with him, called jail. If he doesn't like it, that's too damned bad. Keeping society safe from him, is more important than restoring freedom to someone who will rape and abuse us. We have to start electing judges who impose LONG sentences on these sex offenders... long enough that we don't have to worry about them after they get out.

As for this guy who has to put signs on his car and house... if he doesn't like it, he can always go back into jail. No signs required there. He should thank the judge for his leniency (too much leniency if you ask me) in letting him out while he's statistically likely to molest more little boys, and give him the alternative of posting signs. If he doesn't like that, there's always the other alternative.

--------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341268,00.html

Sex Offender Ordered by Judge to Post Signs

Tuesday, March 25, 2008
AP/The Hutchinson News

As part of his probation, LeRoy Schad, 72, must have signs on his Hudson, Kan., home. He also has to put a sign on his car when he goes to counseling.
HUDSON, Kan. — Under a judge's order, a man who has admitted molesting a boy has posted signs around his house and a decal on his car proclaiming that he is a sex offender.

1_61_032508_sexsigns3.jpg


The hand-painted signs reading "A Sex Offender Lives Here" are posted on all four sides of Leroy Schad's white house in this central Kansas town of only about 150 people. His vehicle has a large decal with bold yellow lettering reading "Sex Offender In This Car."

Schad, 72, was originally charged with four counts of taking indecent liberties with a 9-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy in 2005. He was allowed to plead guilty in March 2007 to a lesser charge of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child, and the original charges were dismissed.

District Judge Ron Svaty sentenced him to five years of probation and house arrest, and ordered him to post the signs during his punishment.
Click to expand...

Bah, old news.
 
BTW, in most states, there is no sentencing option to sentence them to life in prison, even with parole. They're basically using the same laws they've been using since the sixties, when the child abuse problem wasn't widely known. This judge was just doing what he could within his capable judicial discretion.

Oh wait... five years probation? WTF? Is he using Enron justice logic or something?
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
yeah I think people who voted for bush ought to have to wear a sign as well.
At least a bumper sticker.
Click to expand...

I'd wear that sign or bumper sticker. I'm not proud of it but I voted for GW Bush once..........once. I would own up to it. While I didn't vote for him in '04 I still don't disagree with everything he has done. I think he has done harm to our country, sure. But not everything is bad, IMO.
 
No problem with the one time voters Leaning. I guess I should rephrase that to say they voted for bush 2X.
And those that still support bush need mental help imho.
 
Damocles said:
The recidivism rate of pedophiles and the horrific nature of their crime make people work towards more permanent solutions to the problem. I say we should just keep child rapists in prison.
Click to expand...

This depends on what you call a child rapist. There are those who would take this too far, and the 22 year old who slept with his 16 year old girlfirend would end up in prison for life.
 
Jarod said:
This depends on what you call a child rapist. There are those who would take this too far, and the 22 year old who slept with his 16 year old girlfirend would end up in prison for life.
Click to expand...

No, because that is pretty clearly statutory rape, not child rape.

Retard.
 
Watermark said:
BTW, in most states, there is no sentencing option to sentence them to life in prison, even with parole.
Click to expand...

There may indeed be states whose mandatory maximum sentence limits are too small. Many states phrase their penalty statues like "...a period of not more than xx months or years in prison, and a fine of not more than $nn....".

For those states where sex offenders are put away for the legal maximum, and then have a high recidivism rate after they get out, clearly the law that specifies the max, needs to be changed, too. I doubt that those state legislatures would get many complaints from their citizens, if they submitted bill to revise those penalty limits upward. And if they need to build more jails to house all these sex offenders, so be it.

Remember, jail has two purposes, not just one. It would be nice if a jail term causes someone to re-think his life or whatever, and to not do the crime any more when he gets out. That's one purpose. But the other purpose for jail, is to keep people who commit such crimes, away from the rest of society, and so safeguard the rest of society. And if a criminal can't, or won't, change his ways, then he should be kept away from society for AS LONG AS IT TAKES for him to change. If he stays criminally inclined for the rest of his life, especially for horrific crimes such as child rape etc., than that's too damned bad for the rapist. He should stay in the can for as long as he's a significant threat. Society owes that to itself... much more than it owes the child rapist anything.

Judges need the freedom to impose longer sentences, and they need the will to do it. The freedom comes from the legislatures, as I described above. The will must be their own. Those that don't have the will, should be replaced by judges who do have it. And legislators who don't want to revise the penalties upward, should likewise be replaced by candidates who do want to.
 
Last edited:
Little-Acorn said:
Remember, jail has two purposes, not just one. It would be nice if a jail term causes someone to re-think his life or whatever, and to not do the crime any more when he gets out. That's one purpose. But the other purpose for jail, is to keep people who commit such crimes, away from the rest of society, and so safeguard the rest of society. And if a criminal can't, or won't, change his ways, then he should be kept away from society for AS LONG AS IT TAKES for him to change. If he stays criminally inclined for the rest of his life, especially for horrific crimes such as child rape etc., than that's too damned bad for the rapist. He should stay in the can for as long as he's a significant threat. Society owes that to itself... much more than it owes the child rapist anything.
Click to expand...

There are many different purposes of punishment. Retribution, reform, deterrence, incapacitation... just to name a few. I use to be a big proponent of reform, but I've become pretty disillusioned with it, because the statistics are pitiful. Incapacitation is brutal, and I am really a bleeding heart there, but I can think through it logically, and it's appropriate for child molesters...
 
I agree that in a perfect society there would be no incarceration...however, in a perfect society there would be no crime, either.
 
Jarod said:
This depends on what you call a child rapist. There are those who would take this too far, and the 22 year old who slept with his 16 year old girlfirend would end up in prison for life.
Click to expand...
You would set an arbitrary line, like all laws. The 22 year old who sleeps with my 16 year old will WANT to spend the rest of his life in prison.
 
The law would be like this: any man who rapes a child under the age of 13 shall spend no less than the rest of his life in prison, and no more than the rest of his life in prison.

Statutory rape would be under a different law, and would be treated differently, without the mandatory minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top