FBI violated my son's ADA rights

[Jiro]

from the article I posted:

It is not THE couple I am referring to, but I will eventually find that information. However, it is THE point I am trying to make.

You won't find it.

You are failing to see the point that we are making for you. You are jumping all over with unrelated examples and inconsistencies. and you seem to have a very strange view of legal system.

 

[Steinhauer]

You won't find it.

You are failing to see the point that we are making for you. You are jumping all over with unrelated examples and inconsistencies. and you seem to have a very strange view of legal system.

You still haven't answered a hypothetical question. In addition, you have labelled the OP's son as a pedophile. According to "medical" definition, he is not a pedophile. The legal system uses medical definitions via the Adversay System.

Even the legal definition of a pedophile claims an action has to occur to a child for an individual to be legally defined as a pedophile.

Overt acts.

 

[Jiro]

You still haven't answered a hypothetical question.

I did in my post #130. but if it isn't the answer you're looking for, it is because your hypothetical question is erroneous... which was also pointed out by other ADer.

In addition, you have labelled the OP's son as a pedophile. According to "medical" definition, he is not a pedophile. The legal system uses medical definitions via the Adversay System.

Again - we're not in hospital or shrink's office. In the court of law and in society.... he's a pedophile.

The jury has found him guilty of possession (and maybe distribution) of child pornography. Child Pornography is a serious and disgusting crime because it involves child exploitation and child abuse.

Viewing and distributing child pornography is equally heinous as engaging in sex with minors. If you beg to differ, well ok that's your stance and I hope any "innocent" sex offender who you sympathize with will not hurt a child in future. Please do not waste my time with this couple thing where one has to be registered as sex offender simply because their age difference is 1 year. I'm not interested and it's not pertinent to this thread anyway.

Even the legal definition of a pedophile claims an action has to occur to a child for an individual to be legally defined as a pedophile.

Overt acts.

see above. I have given you detailed posts but looks like you still don't get it. Based on what you just said, please link me a source to actual criminal law.

 

[Steinhauer]

I did in my post #130. but if it isn't the answer you're looking for, it is because your hypothetical question is erroneous... which was also pointed out by other ADer.


Again - we're not in hospital or shrink's office. In the court of law and in society.... he's a pedophile.

The jury has found him guilty of possession (and maybe distribution) of child pornography. Child Pornography is a serious and disgusting crime because it involves child exploitation and child abuse.

Viewing and distributing child pornography is equally heinous as engaging in sex with minors. If you beg to differ, well ok that's your stance and I hope any "innocent" sex offender who you sympathize with will not hurt a child in future. Please do not waste my time with this couple thing where one has to be registered as sex offender simply because their age difference is 1 year. I'm not interested and it's not pertinent to this thread anyway.


see above. I have given you detailed posts but looks like you still don't get it. Based on what you just said, please link me a source to actual criminal law.

You are again implicating I am sympathizing with criminals.


here is the definition online (not the best source but you asked for a reference)

pedophilia n. an obsession with children as sex objects. Overt acts, including taking sexual explicit photographs, molesting children, and exposing one's genitalia to children are all crimes. The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness, and the pedophile is often released only to repeat the crimes or escalate the activity to the level of murder. (See: molestation, rape, pornography)

Unless the OP's son physically took sexually explicit photographs of minors himself, molested a child, enticed a child, exposed his genitals to a child, he is not legally a pedophile.

I would define him as a pedophile in progress. Counselling and monitoring would increase the chances of him not becoming one.

You answered my hypothetical question by stating, in a "somewhat" way that you would NOT be comfortable with a violent offender as your next door neighbor and that a sex offender who is on a sex offender registry list does not exist that could possibly be married and have committed their "crime" when they were 17.

I showed you an article stating otherwise. You made a statement that it is not pertinent to this thread because it is about a different type of situation.

In Georgia, there are no "different types" of sex offenders - they are ALL lumped together on the sex offender registry list.

You peed outside and a kid walked by - your a sex offender for the rest of your life and you ghave to register on the sex offenders registry list.

That means everyone in the state can find out where you live.

You rob a bank and kill three people and are out on parole - no such registry exists for you.

 

[Jiro]

You are again implicating I am sympathizing with criminals.


here is the definition online (not the best source but you asked for a reference)

I'm not interested in what a dictionary said. that's not what I asked for. I specifically said - "please link me a source to actual criminal law."

Unless the OP's son physically took sexually explicit photographs of minors himself, molested a child, enticed a child, exposed his genitals to a child, he is not legally a pedophile.

I would define him as a pedophile in progress. Counselling and monitoring would increase the chances of him not becoming one.

"He is not legally a pedophile?"

so I take it that there is a legal parameter to be legally labeled as a pedophile? please link me to such source.

 

[Steinhauer]

I'm not interested in what a dictionary said. that's not what I asked for. I specifically said - "please link me a source to actual criminal law."



"He is not legally a pedophile?"

so I take it that there is a legal parameter to be legally labeled as a pedophile? please link me to such source.

pick up a copy of legal definitions.

 

[Jiro]

pick up a copy of legal definitions.

*checking*...... it matches up to my post #107.

so got any link that supports your statement such as criminal laws? I cannot believe you linked me to...... a dictionary :roll:

 

[Jiro]

Steinhauer - I am giving you examples of ACTUAL cases that ACTUALLY happened and I want to see your opinion on it.

1. Roman Polanski, a film director, plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor (but nobody was hurt or rape. it was "consensual"). Is he a pedophile?

2. Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home at age 14 years old. She was held against her will at kidnapper's house for nine months and she was repeatedly raped for months. Is he a pedophile?

3. My high school vice principal was arrested for possession of child pornography in his computer at high school and also a pipe with marijuana in his drawer. He had thousands and thousands of photos and videos of minors engaging in sex. However, he had never hurt or raped a child. Is he a pedophile?

4. Phillip Greaves wrote a how-to guide called "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct". But He never had sex with a child. Is he a pedophile?

5. Jack McCellan had never molested a child but he blogged about his attraction to young girls. He posted photos of children in public places and he discussed about how he like to stake out the public places where girls are at. Is he a pedophile?

Please, for the love of God... answer my questions with a yes or no and nothing else. I'm not interested in your verbose statements because most of time - it's irrelevant and unrelated to this very post. I'm specifically interested in either "YES" or "NO" to each of five cases that actually happened. I hope you can follow this simple instruction.

 

[Reba]

You are again implicating I am sympathizing with criminals.

here is the definition online (not the best source but you asked for a reference)

[pedophilia n. an obsession with children as sex objects. Overt acts, including taking sexual explicit photographs, molesting children, and exposing one's genitalia to children are all crimes. The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness, and the pedophile is often released only to repeat the crimes or escalate the activity to the level of murder. (See: molestation, rape, pornography) ]

Unless the OP's son physically took sexually explicit photographs of minors himself, molested a child, enticed a child, exposed his genitals to a child, he is not legally a pedophile.

I would define him as a pedophile in progress. Counselling and monitoring would increase the chances of him not becoming one.

Your posted definition states that:

"pedophilia n. an obsession with children as sex objects."

Pedophilia is defined by the obsession, not the action.

"Overt acts, including taking sexual explicit photographs, molesting children, and exposing one's genitalia to children are all crimes. The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness, and the pedophile is often released only to repeat the crimes or escalate the activity to the level of murder. (See: molestation, rape, pornography)"

The overt acts of the pedophile put him into the legal jurisdiction.

However, by the definition, a person is a pedophile because of his obsession, not because of overt actions.

He isn't prosecuted for his obsession but for his actions.

 

[Reba]

You still haven't answered a hypothetical question. In addition, you have labelled the OP's son as a pedophile. According to "medical" definition, he is not a pedophile....

According to your posted definition, a pedophile is someone who has:

"an obsession with children as sex objects"

So, the OP's son could be a pedophile even if he hasn't committed an overt action directly against a child.

As far as the law is concerned though, he was arrested for possession of child pornography. That is illegal whether or not the possessor is a pedophile. One can be arrested for possession and/or distribution even if it was strictly for profit and not pleasure.

 

[jazzy]

I'm talking about adults who can barely print their own names, and can read nothing. They can copy an address or memorize a phone number but that's about it. They can't fingerspell either except for names.

They don't have HS diplomas.

They don't use computers, text phones, or TTY. They can't read captions.

People do fall thru the cracks.

Yeah i used to work with those deaf people.... So many deaf students did not pass exit exam here in Calif. They never got HS diplomas.

 

[Steinhauer]

Your posted definition states that:

"pedophilia n. an obsession with children as sex objects."

Pedophilia is defined by the obsession, not the action.

"Overt acts, including taking sexual explicit photographs, molesting children, and exposing one's genitalia to children are all crimes. The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness, and the pedophile is often released only to repeat the crimes or escalate the activity to the level of murder. (See: molestation, rape, pornography)"

The overt acts of the pedophile put him into the legal jurisdiction.

However, by the definition, a person is a pedophile because of his obsession, not because of overt actions.

He isn't prosecuted for his obsession but for his actions.

The obsession that causes them to act on their urges maybe? That was how I read the definition.

 

[Steinhauer]

Steinhauer - I am giving you examples of ACTUAL cases that ACTUALLY happened and I want to see your opinion on it.

1. Roman Polanski, a film director, plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor (but nobody was hurt or rape. it was "consensual"). Is he a pedophile?

Yes, he acted on his urges and molested a minor

2. Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home at age 14 years old. She was held against her will at kidnapper's house for nine months and she was repeatedly raped for months. Is he a pedophile?

a pedophile, stalker,kidnapper and rapist

3. My high school vice principal was arrested for possession of child pornography in his computer at high school and also a pipe with marijuana in his drawer. He had thousands and thousands of photos and videos of minors engaging in sex. However, he had never hurt or raped a child. Is he a pedophile?


no - he has a sick obsession with child pornography

4. Phillip Greaves wrote a how-to guide called "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct". But He never had sex with a child. Is he a pedophile?

no - he is a book author

5. Jack McCellan had never molested a child but he blogged about his attraction to young girls. He posted photos of children in public places and he discussed about how he like to stake out the public places where girls are at. Is he a pedophile?


Yes, he physically took sexually explicit photographs of minors and distributed them

Please, for the love of God... answer my questions with a yes or no and nothing else. I'm not interested in your verbose statements because most of time - it's irrelevant and unrelated to this very post. I'm specifically interested in either "YES" or "NO" to each of five cases that actually happened. I hope you can follow this simple instruction.

I am not interested in your misrepresentation of facts. You repeatedly throw in your own implications and misrepresent what was actually stated. You do this time and again and every time I call you on it you make offensive remarks as if that corrects the problem.

It doesn't.

Here is another question for you ... your roommate in college has an obsession with bondage porn - does that make him a kidnapping rapist? Or does that make him someone with an obsession for porn?

 

[Reba]

"Pedophilia is a clinical term, describing the condition of a person who has had reoccurring, arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activities with prepubescent children ( age 13 or younger ). This condition must haven been present for at least 6 months in order to be categorized as a pedophile. Pedophiles don’t necessarily have to act upon their urges and fantasies and might live their entire life not even touching one child. Child molesters act upon their urges and therefore commit a crime every time they touch a child in an inappropriate manner. Simply stated, not every pedophile is a child molester but every child molester is pedophile – a pedophile gone to the next level."
Child Molestation Laws - State Resources | Lawyers and Attorneys for Defense or Prosecution | ChildMolestationLaws.com

 

[Beowulf]

Hmmmm, I wonder how many more prisons we will need to build in order to lock up every "pedophile" in this country.

 

[jillio]

I have met several.

I am sorry to hear that. I have no doubt that it still occurs, but the majority of my contact is with school aged and college aged people. While I often see serious delays, I have never seen one that is completely unable to read and/or write. Thank goodness.

 

[jillio]

Excuse me for butting in but I believe that the statutory rape charge doesn't apply when both parties are under age and are the same age. Therefor, they wouldn't be required to register as sex offenders.

Secondly, Charles Manson will never be released on parole.

In order to be a hypothetical question it has to be based on some sort of realistic circumstances.

Exactly.

 

[jillio]

You might want to check with the Adult Parole Authority on that one. I don't believe that your information is correct.

 

[jillio]

According to your posted definition, a pedophile is someone who has:

"an obsession with children as sex objects"

So, the OP's son could be a pedophile even if he hasn't committed an overt action directly against a child.

As far as the law is concerned though, he was arrested for possession of child pornography. That is illegal whether or not the possessor is a pedophile. One can be arrested for possession and/or distribution even if it was strictly for profit and not pleasure.

Exactly. One cannot be arrested for having an obsession. One must have committed an illegal act in order to be arrested.

 

[jillio]

The obsession that causes them to act on their urges maybe? That was how I read the definition.

Obsessions are not compulsions. Compulsions are behaviors. Obsessions are thoughts. People every day experience obsessions without compulsions.