TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Authorities seize sex offender's baby
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Authorities seize sex offender's baby

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/22/se....ap/index.html The man was convicted of rape and sodomy two decades ago (no details about the victim). Do you think this is going too far?
post #2 of 21
He's a convicted rapist. I do not need to know any more than that.He does not deserve the joys of having a baby.

IMO, he never should have been released from jail in the first place- the likelihood of him reoffending is too high for my comfort. I agree with authorities on this one.
post #3 of 21
Nope, I think they should take all kids away from all pedophiles. But then I think all pedophiles should be shot immediately upon conviction.
post #4 of 21
Thread Starter 
He spent more than a decade in prison for raping two teenaged girls. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051011/D8D5NQ5O0.html This is the third child the mother lost because of her marriage: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/22/na...&partner=MYWAY
post #5 of 21
what about the mothers rights? she hasnt been convicted of anything
post #6 of 21
The mother is a crack head, no sympathy for her either. She should go get herself spayed.
She needs to get a clue and ditch this guy.
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
The mother is a crack head, no sympathy for her either. She should go get herself spayed.
She needs to get a clue and ditch this guy.

It doesnt say anywhere that she is a crack head...she is acused of using drugs, but she has volunteered to undergo a drug test.....


But i do agree that it is bizzare that a women would marry and have children with a convicted sex offender
post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
The mother is a crack head, no sympathy for her either. She should go get herself spayed.
She needs to get a clue and ditch this guy.
Now that is being far too harsh and judgemental, no? So she's used drugs. So what? We have former coke users elected as President! Do you think Dubya should have been neutered as well?

I do not know what she was thinking, having a baby with a convicted rapist. But people do things that defy logic everyday.I wish she were not with that man so that she could maintain custody of her baby, but I understand that there's too much of a risk of him coming around for that to happen.

I just hope that baby grows up safe, healthy, and happy.
post #9 of 21
Until the laws are changed to say that any convicted rapist, child or otherwise, must be locked away for life and/or castrated, the state is WAY overstepping their bounds here. He has served the sentence, he has complied with registration laws, by all accounts he has been a law abiding citizen for the 10 years he's been back in society. The mother has NO convictions of anything that they have dug up. In fact, in the NY Times article they said straight out that they have no issue with her fitness as a mother, just her choice of partners.

Beyond that, the rape and attempted rape was of 2 teenage girls. It seems highly unlikely that he would pose a serious threat to his newborn SON based on that sole conviction.

And I completely agree with Amy about how judgemental it is to use possible past drug use against the mother being ever allowed to have a child. Gee, I used marijuana a few times 15-20 years ago. For gods sake - you better come take away my cats! I'm certainly an unfit caretaker!!

This reeks of wrongful prosecution and double jeopardy for the father. Perhaps he was one of the few convicted felons who actually WAS rehabilitated and has changed his ways.

Don't get me wrong, I have very little sympathy for rapists and child abusers, and I do think the sentences should be a LOT harsher. But legally this is just plain B.S. Why should offenders comply with the registry laws if they are going to have this type of persecution hurled at them, and their families (who by all accounts are legally INNOCENT)?
post #10 of 21
Heidi as always you have worded that perfectly!!
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Until the laws are changed to say that any convicted rapist, child or otherwise, must be locked away for life and/or castrated, the state is WAY overstepping their bounds here. He has served the sentence, he has complied with registration laws, by all accounts he has been a law abiding citizen for the 10 years he's been back in society. The mother has NO convictions of anything that they have dug up. In fact, in the NY Times article they said straight out that they have no issue with her fitness as a mother, just her choice of partners.

Beyond that, the rape and attempted rape was of 2 teenage girls. It seems highly unlikely that he would pose a serious threat to his newborn SON based on that sole conviction.

And I completely agree with Amy about how judgemental it is to use possible past drug use against the mother being ever allowed to have a child. Gee, I used marijuana a few times 15-20 years ago. For gods sake - you better come take away my cats! I'm certainly an unfit caretaker!!

This reeks of wrongful prosecution and double jeopardy for the father. Perhaps he was one of the few convicted felons who actually WAS rehabilitated and has changed his ways.

Don't get me wrong, I have very little sympathy for rapists and child abusers, and I do think the sentences should be a LOT harsher. But legally this is just plain B.S. Why should offenders comply with the registry laws if they are going to have this type of persecution hurled at them, and their families (who by all accounts are legally INNOCENT)?
I totally agree with you Heidi. If he has done everything and paid his debt to society, and has posed no danger for a long time, then that is something to think about before passing judgement.
post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Until the laws are changed to say that any convicted rapist, child or otherwise, must be locked away for life and/or castrated, the state is WAY overstepping their bounds here. He has served the sentence, he has complied with registration laws, by all accounts he has been a law abiding citizen for the 10 years he's been back in society. The mother has NO convictions of anything that they have dug up. In fact, in the NY Times article they said straight out that they have no issue with her fitness as a mother, just her choice of partners.

Beyond that, the rape and attempted rape was of 2 teenage girls. It seems highly unlikely that he would pose a serious threat to his newborn SON based on that sole conviction.

And I completely agree with Amy about how judgemental it is to use possible past drug use against the mother being ever allowed to have a child. Gee, I used marijuana a few times 15-20 years ago. For gods sake - you better come take away my cats! I'm certainly an unfit caretaker!!

This reeks of wrongful prosecution and double jeopardy for the father. Perhaps he was one of the few convicted felons who actually WAS rehabilitated and has changed his ways.

Don't get me wrong, I have very little sympathy for rapists and child abusers, and I do think the sentences should be a LOT harsher. But legally this is just plain B.S. Why should offenders comply with the registry laws if they are going to have this type of persecution hurled at them, and their families (who by all accounts are legally INNOCENT)?

Thank you
post #13 of 21
There was a time when I would have thought that he has paid his dues, and therefore should have the same rights as any American, but I've come to realize and understand that people who commit those crimes are monsters. There is no cure for pedophilia, and even if they continuously choose to not do what they WANT to do to a child, as he has for 10 years, does not mean that it won't happen again. It's like leaving your child with a tame tiger--it could be the sweetest thing in the world, but it is still a wild animal. No child will ever be safe with him, and gender is of no issue because it's not about homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Child rapists/molesters should never be let out of prison. They are a constant threat to society's most innocent and beloved. Rape isn't a crime you "oops, it just happened" do, or are led to do by living the life you have led--there is something in them that makes them do it and it never goes away. They should never, EVER be allowed to be around children! The fact that they are, is proof that there is something desperately wrong with the system. However, the fact that they saw reason to take their baby away is a step in the right direction. I don't think it's fair to take away his child when there is no law stating that sex offenders aren't allowed to have children, but there is probably something WE don't know. They had a reason to take that baby away, and did so legally, so it wasn't just because he had a record.

The problem is that people see them as being able to be fixed. They're not broken, this is how they are made! The laws need to be changed!
post #14 of 21
Thread Starter 
http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/1020/newborn_ap.html According to this article, she admitted to having used cocaine, methamphetamines, and working as a prostitute in the past, and he supposedly abused a daughter, but both deny the allegations. Also, the mother doesn't live with the baby's father.
I suppose what bothers me is the inconsistency of the legal system/child protective services. If there is no law barring sex offenders from having/raising children, then the decision in this case appears to have been made on allegations. Yet Michael Jackson, about whom there have been many, many allegations of pedophilia, was allowed to retain custody of his children, and whisk them off to Bahrain? And Lashuan Harris, who threw her boys into the Bay, was permitted to retain custody of the kids, although her mother contacted social services and told them she'd stopped taking her meds and was threatening her sons? http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/102...ncisco_ap.html
post #15 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/1020/newborn_ap.html According to this article, she admitted to having used cocaine, methamphetamines, and working as a prostitute in the past, and he supposedly abused a daughter, but both deny the allegations. Also, the mother doesn't live with the baby's father.
I suppose what bothers me is the inconsistency of the legal system/child protective services. If there is no law barring sex offenders from having/raising children, then the decision in this case appears to have been made on allegations. Yet Michael Jackson, about whom there have been many, many allegations of pedophilia, was allowed to retain custody of his children, and whisk them off to Bahrain? And Lashuan Harris, who threw her boys into the Bay, was permitted to retain custody of the kids, although her mother contacted social services and told them she'd stopped taking her meds and was threatening her sons? http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/102...ncisco_ap.html

You make some great points....I think Micheal Jackson can be explained as great attorneys and incompetent jurors...(they addmitted afterwards that they aquitted him because they did not like the mother......)...In my opinion they should have convicted MJ then brought the mother up on child endangerment charges.........

As for the other two cases, you also make great points...I am continually reading stories of parents turining themselves into child services, because they do not trust themselves with their children, yet CS rarely seems to do anything, and the childrens lives tragically end at the hands of their unstable parents.......

It seems that thia may be a case of the PC police....to take a child away from a Mentally Ill person would be discrimination,groups would be up in arms if something like this happened....Whereas for Sex offenders are backed by very little advocates.........

I myself would love to see any sex offender put down, in some painful and touturous way......but thats not how the law reads.........If we want to bend a sex offenders civil rights, then we must expect that anyone else out there can have their civil rights trampled upon....So unless we want to live in a Gastapo like police state, we have to accept the fact that these "Animals" have rights just like the rest of us......

Its not a perfect system that our forefathers made for us, which is not their fault, they weren't perfect either.....and many of us may not agree, but this is how the government is setup......

This is a blatent case of "McCarthyism", rumors and past deeds do not hold up in court, why should it be any different for this towns local law inforcement...........

Sometimes we have to pay dearly for the right bestowed upon us, but without them where would we be?
post #16 of 21
You go Purr.
These monsters NEVER pay their debt, their debt is unpayable.
The sooner that is realized the better for all the innocent babies out there being abused, raped and murdered.
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purr
and gender is of no issue because it's not about homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Actually, this isn't absolutely true. Sex offenders generally have a primary preference of gender and even age range.

Also, the mother lives 20 miles away from this guy so I don't fully understand this action.

Every single one of us lives within 20 miles of a sex offender.

And if the mother gets to keep the baby, that man's activities will be heavily monitored by social services.

And I second or third the comment against the mother not having rights to her child due to previous drug use. That's pure rubbish. You shouldn't be condemned for your past mistakes.
post #18 of 21
If there's no law against them having children right now, they're overstepping thier boundaries here.

Widespread actions of this kind where they show total disregard for either parents' right to care for their child will only lead to more children being in foster care unnecessarily, which could honestly be a lot worse than simply checking up on them once in a while to make sure the child is ok or giving the mom custody and letting the dad visit every once in a while.

There are lots of people who have never been arrested for sex offenses that have been found to be abusing their own children (and sometimes their childrens' friends, or foster children) regularly. Their children suffer every day in fear, but because society hadnt stamped "sex offender" on their foreheads, nothing is done about it.

Many people have used, and successfully quit drugs. Quite a few of them that I know turned out to be great parents, and have very happy, successful lives. Must we honestly negatively judge people on EVERY wrong choice they made in the past for the rest of their lives? What is next? Denying a 40-year-old person the right to keep their child because they stole a Snicker bar when they were 7? Or dated a conrtolling abuser when they were 25? Or beat up someone when they were 14?
post #19 of 21
Unfortunately, we don't have all the facts, and indeed, are very unlikely to, to form an accurate opinion. My husband works frequently with these types of cases, and is usu. appointed to represent one of the parents, so I do read the discovery, which is, appropriately CONFIDENTIAL. Unless you are allowed access to the confidential information, you will not, without petitioning the Court, be able to know all the information. In this case, this is an emergency order; evidence was presented to the Judge, and he issued the order based on that. More facts will be presented for the temporary and the permanent orders. After the orders are in effect, there will be opportunities for reviews, and if necessary, appeals. It looks great for the media to simplify this - it makes for great headlines & probably improved sales. But this may well have been best for the baby - parental rights are sacred in the court of law. I know that many people disagree with me; but I have seen these cases in a small town, and there is always more than meets the eye. Not always the right decision is made, but these cases are rarely "black & white".
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purr
There was a time when I would have thought that he has paid his dues, and therefore should have the same rights as any American, but I've come to realize and understand that people who commit those crimes are monsters. There is no cure for pedophilia, and even if they continuously choose to not do what they WANT to do to a child, as he has for 10 years, does not mean that it won't happen again. It's like leaving your child with a tame tiger--it could be the sweetest thing in the world, but it is still a wild animal. No child will ever be safe with him, and gender is of no issue because it's not about homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Child rapists/molesters should never be let out of prison. They are a constant threat to society's most innocent and beloved. Rape isn't a crime you "oops, it just happened" do, or are led to do by living the life you have led--there is something in them that makes them do it and it never goes away. They should never, EVER be allowed to be around children! The fact that they are, is proof that there is something desperately wrong with the system. However, the fact that they saw reason to take their baby away is a step in the right direction. I don't think it's fair to take away his child when there is no law stating that sex offenders aren't allowed to have children, but there is probably something WE don't know. They had a reason to take that baby away, and did so legally, so it wasn't just because he had a record.

The problem is that people see them as being able to be fixed. They're not broken, this is how they are made! The laws need to be changed!
I agree that rapists and child molesters cannot be "fixed." Crimes of this nature indicate some sort of mental sickness, in my opinion. And even if his child is male, when he grows up and has female friends come over, those girls would be endangered by being brought into the house of a sex offender (I'm sure the father would never have shared his past with his own child).
post #21 of 21
The neuter cats don't they?
Keep those genes out of the gene pool!!
I mean... that's why we have prisons right?

On the other hand i DO think that IF this is the law... then it should be made clear to him/her BEFORE they are let out of prison. It would be a little unfair if noone ever told him that this would happen to him . . and also for the wife. I am totally not on their side here but i do think that they should be told and it should be common knowledge that ex-convicted rapists do not get to have kids in the future.... It's the fairest way to deal with the situation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Authorities seize sex offender's baby