Nikki Nue

I have a hard time believing there was no sign that this was coming. I hope, if nothing else, this is used in a way that will teach us something so this never happens again. Someone should have caught on to the fact that this POS was not stable.

See, I have Vista now and I actually like it. My roommate has 7 and it just doesn't seem worth it to me. I don't care for how it looks or the new processes. Bleh. I know most people don't like Vista and I didn't at first either but now I don't want to change. I don't like change.

HP is finally (finally!) replacing my laptop again. Hopefully this will be the last time. My case manager gave me a choice between a refurbished model or a new model running 7. Since I don't want to be the proud owner of someone else's problem, I took the new model with 7. I don't want to upgrade to 7. Is there a downgrade to Vista available? I just figured it out and I don't want to learn a new one again

The shooter is alive and their spokesman said his death is "not entirely imminent" According to the article I read, he had hoped the wars would be ended and often got in arguments with soldiers that supported the wars. It is a shame no one saw this coming so it might have been prevented. It is bad enough we lose these brave men and women in war. We don't need to be losing them here as well. We should be safe on our bases.

We're not talking about the US Justice system. We're talking about this creep who did these things to those kids and now is being punished in a somewhat unorthodox way. YOU are the one throwing around all the rehab crap. And, to make myself SUPER clear, since you seem to have a comprehension issue, any ANIMAL that does this type of crap to defenseless kids deserves EXACTLY what this dude got. Not rehab. There should be no second chances. And you know as well as I do that what this guy did is not the same as the dude who fell for the 16 yo that snuck into a bar... stop being obtuse. It's annoying. Never, not once, did I say this man could be rehabed or should be set free. In fact, I did state that he deserved to be killed for his actions. I do, however, think public crucifixion is the wrong way to go. It will mess up some kids that see that, and probably some adults as well. However, we did get to talking about sex offenses here early on (and no, that wasn't me that started that track). And Galoma, I agree they are not the same but our justice system says they are.

I have a HS friend who now is a father of 3 who would disagree. He ended up marrying his HS GF, the same GF whose parents had him arrested the week after he turned 18. He technically isn't even allowed to attend his girls' soccer games at the school Jen, I am not referring to an 18 year old here at all, and I said that earlier, but the 35 year old man Nicki was talking about. I said earlier pedophilia is not the 18 year old making it with a 15/16 year old, it's these grown men kidnapping these young girls and raping them, remember Daniel Van Dam? All she did was go to his house to sell gs cookies and the next weekend this ahole snuck into her home and kidnapped her and held her for 3 days in his camper raping her before he tossed her body in the desert. They found her fingerprints on his headboard. And his defense lawyers tried to blame the parents lifestyle when the defense lawyer KNEW he was guilty and offered to plea a deal to tell where her body was, but that didn't come into court. These are the men I am speaking to, not your friend. I think what happened to your friend is terrible. but under the law, he's the grown man you're speaking of the law didn't care if he was 18 or 35. That's my point. That is exactly my point. If you say all sex offenders should be locked away or killed then that means that 18 year old is to be locked away or killed for dating his HS sweetheart. And if not, where do you draw this magical line that everyone adheres to regardless of circumstance?

THAT is something you want to try to fix? Really?? But the problem is, Galoma, they are often treated the same. They are labeled sex offenders all the same and according to many people all sex offenders should be locked away. And where do you draw the line? If it is a 16 year old girl is she a child? What about 15? I know where the states draw the line but even that is arbitrary. All I am saying is each case needs to be looked at individually and each criminal should be individually evaluated and treated properly. No, I don't want to fix something like that. I think that man is a violent criminal and deserves to die for his actions. But I don't think every man that commits this type of crime is on par with that man. You may, I don't. We just had a letter writing campaign here. But that kind of argument, that he didn't know the girl's age, doesn't fly, not morally or in the eyes of the law. Just like it doesn't fly when a bar serves to someone underage; it is a man responsibility for due diligence that the girl he hooks up with is of age. If a grown man makes it with someone under age then he deserves being labeled an offender. Did you ever see To Catch a Predator? Did you see these guys? During their chats they would want the 13 year old but after they were caught they would say oh I thought she was older, that is until Chris Hanson showed them their chats..... You think they cannot get a fake ID? What then? You think men should have to check ID on every youngish person they hook up with? That is a bit ridiculous. If the situation matches them having been of age, we should be able to assume they are of age. Unless there is something else to suggest they are not. I do love To Catch A Predator. The problem is, though, that many of those predators didn't actually break the law. It is not illegal to talk about it - it is illegal to actually do it. Hence why many were never even prosecuted. I have never seen that show. I know that they had to pay a huge settlement in a lawsuit regarding one of their episodes. It is my understanding that in most instances the men they "caught" were never prosecuted or were not convicted. Yup. That darn freedom of speech clause sneaks in. You can talk about all sorts of things you cannot actually do.

Well, then. There you go. I respect your right to share a different view. I do, but don't you sometimes feel your concerns are on the wrong side of this issue? Where is your concern for these harmed children or future harmed children? Just because I have concern that criminals are treated fairly and within the bounds of what is appropriate does not mean I don't have concern for the children that are harmed. But, let's look at the Saudi case. Don't you think real harm might be done to children that see a headless crucified man in public? Might it deter future crime? Yes. But might it also traumatize them? I can't imagine what it would do to me to see a headless man dead on a cross in the middle of a desert let alone some kid! And as for here, I think it is important that the punishment fit the crime and the criminal. Having lived near Dylan and Shasta Groene before they were kidnapped (and Dylan killed), I understand the dangers of releasing sexual criminals. Which is why a system needs to be developed to evaluate, realistically, the likelihood to re-offend. Men like Joseph Duncan should not have ever been released. But they are not all the same and should not all be treated the same way. Is there a reason it cannot be both? Why can we not punish and rehabilitate those that can be and punish and remove from society those that cannot be rehabilitated? In all cases where a crime is broken, adequate punishment is deserved. I by no means think these people should be given a slap on the wrist and set free. But with sexual offenses and many other crimes one offense does not necessarily mean they will offend again. That is why we have levels of crime. We cannot possibly think that all sex crimes are equal, can we? There is a big difference between the creepy guy on the street leering at children and the guy that really thought the girl was 18. Although both are sex offenders, should they both be locked away forever and never rehabilitated? As for other crimes there is a big difference between the person that kills for pleasure and the person that snaps and kills in a sudden fit of rage. Both are murderers and both deserve punishment but their crimes are not equal and their punishment and future should not be either. I have read it. And I think this case is a prime example of how our system is not currently working. But just because it isn't working now doesn't mean we cannot make it work. I think a 1 strike and you're out law is the only way to go. And I am not talking, nor I don't think anyone else here is talking about the 18 year old boy and 15 year old girl scenario, we are talking pedophilia. In that case a 1 strike and your out would be a deterrent, not to mention would make our streets, parks, front yards, neighborhood side walks a lot safer as time went on. What about the 35 year old man that thought he was hooking up with a 19 year old college student only to find out she was 16? Right here at my local university. He does not deserve to be locked away for life. But he is a sexual offender according to our state laws.

That is what I had to do with VZW and HP both. I got a direct number and now I don't even bother with "customer service."

Well, then. There you go.

Is there a reason it cannot be both? Why can we not punish and rehabilitate those that can be and punish and remove from society those that cannot be rehabilitated? In all cases where a crime is broken, adequate punishment is deserved. I by no means think these people should be given a slap on the wrist and set free. But with sexual offenses and many other crimes one offense does not necessarily mean they will offend again. That is why we have levels of crime. We cannot possibly think that all sex crimes are equal, can we? There is a big difference between the creepy guy on the street leering at children and the guy that really thought the girl was 18. Although both are sex offenders, should they both be locked away forever and never rehabilitated? As for other crimes there is a big difference between the person that kills for pleasure and the person that snaps and kills in a sudden fit of rage. Both are murderers and both deserve punishment but their crimes are not equal and their punishment and future should not be either. I have read it. And I think this case is a prime example of how our system is not currently working. But just because it isn't working now doesn't mean we cannot make it work.

Yeah, how do you propose that be done? Google the name Christopher Barrios. Read the testimony in that trial and tell me ANY of those 3 should be rehabilitated. They were given second chances. They were registered sex offenders. They were not supposed to have unsupervised contact with children. But, because of people who think like you, let's give them second chances, let's rehabilitate them, we'll just make them register as sex offenders and tell them to stay away from children, a mother has to live with the knowledge that her baby cried in pain, screamed for help, and begged his rapists to stop before they strangled him to death. I only wish these three had been tried by a Saudi court. Good Lord, be a bit more dramatic. Where did I say all should be let out into society? Where did I say all could be rehabilitated? And, by the way,"people like [me]" want to solve the problem rather than simply lock it away and bury my head in the sand.

I did not say it was possible nor did I suggest he should not be punished. Perhaps you should actually try reading and asking questions if you don't understand my point of view rather than making assumptions? Actually you did. Maybe you should try previewing your post before posting. Please refer to highlighted portion: Now, maybe you meant that rehab in GENERAL is possible, but that's not the way it was written or the way I read it. If you're going to jump from THIS case to generalities, maybe you should specify. I still don't buy the opinion. But I don't buy a lot of things I hear. Actually I didn't. Read with proper syntax and if you don't understand why not ask rather than assume. It is ok. I don't bite. I will clarify if you are confused on my opinion. And you don't have to buy my opinion. It is mine and I don't expect yours to be the same. And how do you know if rehabilitation is successful or not? Can you look in the eyes of the parents whose child was molested by a repeat offender and say "Oh, sorry, well, now we know he can't be rehabilitated." Remove them from society after the first infraction and you don't have that problem. Repeat offenders almost never seek out help. And, again as I said before, sex offenders should always be kept away from children unsupervised. Don't give them the opportunity and there wont be a problem. Do you really believe that a twelve year old boy that touches a younger boy ought to be removed from society? Because there have been cases like this where young boys do something stupid and are branded sex offenders (sometimes rightfully, others not).

I did not say it was possible nor did I suggest he should not be punished. Perhaps you should actually try reading and asking questions if you don't understand my point of view rather than making assumptions? Every situation is different. First time offenders, particularly if they are young and have no history of sexual deviancy of violence are often rehabilitated. They spend their time in a correctional facility and go on to lead normal, productive lives. Repeat offenders are almost never rehabilitated nor are offenders who begin offending later in life. That said one of the best signs that someone can be rehabilitated is that they realize what they did, they admit their guilt, they recognize it is wrong and seek to get the help they need. Without that, they cannot be helped. With all of that, there is a chance they can be. Thank you for responding. See, what bugs me is that guy that kidnapped that girl 18 years ago. The parole officer thought things were fine and dandy with that man for 18 years! And yet all this time he had been raping this 11 year old girl that he had stolen. So do we really know if any of these guys are rehabilitated or if they are going under the radar in areas where they have understaffed and overworked police officers. Even with my POV I believe there are some guys who WANT help, and recognize what they are doing is wrong and even hate themselves for it, (unlike this guy who kept that girl for 18 years who had evidently wrote and recorded songs about his love of little girls while he had the girl trapped in his yard) But that they can't help re offending over and over because the illness is unfixable. They key is recognizing what they are doing is wrong and wanting help. I do not believe it is unfixable, at that we disagree. Do you think there are people who realize what they are doing is wrong and want help but reoffend because of the type of illness it is or do you believe that if they want help and seek help that that is enough and they can be cured? Do you think there are any cases where a man wants and requests help but is too far gone in the illness? ETA: Just saw your edit, yes I was referring to the Dugard case. Agree, failures all around. I thought the family would be owning the city by now. I think that the realization and the want for help are not always enough. Not all of them can be cured no matter how hard they try. At least not yet. Perhaps one day. Which is why I think that, regardless of their likelihood to reoffend, no previous offender ought to be around children unsupervised. And it is why I support sex offender databases. Because they have shown an inclination towards that sort of deviancy they cannot be fully trusted (that is, of course, until we actually do have a cure for this which I hope we will one day). I do believe there are cases where men (and women) want help but there is nothing that can help them. That is sad and, at that point, it is best for everyone that they be removed from society by some means (whether through hospitalization or prison if they re-offend).

I did not say it was possible nor did I suggest he should not be punished. Perhaps you should actually try reading and asking questions if you don't understand my point of view rather than making assumptions? Every situation is different. First time offenders, particularly if they are young and have no history of sexual deviancy of violence are often rehabilitated. They spend their time in a correctional facility and go on to lead normal, productive lives. Repeat offenders are almost never rehabilitated nor are offenders who begin offending later in life. That said one of the best signs that someone can be rehabilitated is that they realize what they did, they admit their guilt, they recognize it is wrong and seek to get the help they need. Without that, they cannot be helped. With all of that, there is a chance they can be. Thank you for responding. See, what bugs me is that guy that kidnapped that girl 18 years ago. The parole officer thought things were fine and dandy with that man for 18 years! And yet all this time he had been raping this 11 year old girl that he had stolen. So do we really know if any of these guys are rehabilitated or if they are going under the radar in areas where they have understaffed and overworked police officers. Even with my POV I believe there are some guys who WANT help, and recognize what they are doing is wrong and even hate themselves for it, (unlike this guy who kept that girl for 18 years who had evidently wrote and recorded songs about his love of little girls while he had the girl trapped in his yard) But that they can't help re offending over and over because the illness is unfixable. They key is recognizing what they are doing is wrong and wanting help. I do not believe it is unfixable, at that we disagree. And if it is the Dugard case you are talking about there seems to have been a lot of chances for him to have been caught. The system failed, sadly, that time and I hope that if nothing else people can learn from that case.