Do sex offenders deserve a second chance?

Depends on what you're classifying as a sexual offense.

Technically having a naked picture of yourself on your phone if you're under 18 in the pic is by law possession of child pornography and a sexual offense.

The following 3 offenses I think should carry life sentences.
1. Violent rape- if it is proven the guy took her by force.
2. If a guy drugs a girl without her knowledge to fuck her.
3. Sex with a minor of a certain age, not sure where the line should be drawn here, but I'll say if the kid is in the single digits.

Nope. They're subhuman.

I think everyone deserves a second chance. Especially people who haven't done anything serious.

Everyone deserves a second chance.

It depends on the recidivism. If the offender will repeat his or her crimes or if its a one time deal. That I believe is taken into account.

Some should be given a second chance. Some are more heinous than the next.

Most sex offenses are fare the results from power of suggestion. Some little kid sees a grown up penis, doesn't think anything about it, tells mom or some woman they saw someone's willy and giggled. The woman instantly goes hysterical, not asking for the circumstances, perhaps someone was walking to or from a shower unaware of anyone in the house, this woman calls the police and cries child is damaged for life. The penis is not psychically traumatizing, its the reaction some people have to it or pretend. Rape is not the genitals, even if the genitals are used in some cases. Rape like all assaults is about control and stripping away someone's security. Rape is not sex either. Why is rape hard to prove. There are many circumstances. There is a movement or cause by a certain group that wants the laws changed. If a woman cries rape they want to be instantly believed, the accused thrown in jail without a trial or legal proceedings or legal counsel, no rape kits, no interviews or investigation. Just believe me when I say I've been raped and throw him in jail. This is unconstitutional. We also as a society choose our demons. Brock Turner for example fingered an unconscious girl behind a dumpster, Owen LeBrie lured a girl to a tower, and John Enochs did something similar twice, recently there is a 20 year old dude from Wisconsin that kept a notebook of his conquests. There was also a high school student by the name of David--last name escapes me--who also committed the crime. John Enochs received probation, Owen LeBrie sexual offender registry and 2 years held off on a appeal. David someone no jail time and Brock Turner 6 months, 5 years probation and life time sexual offender registry. Then recently one guy who served 16 years had his conviction overturned because it turned out the girl cried wolf. People are saying the girl and anyone who falsifies a rape claim should be arrested, women are saying NO, because the poor girl was just confused. Someone spends 16 years in jail for something he didn't commit and the girl is just confused. I am one who does not believe rape deserves a life sentence. Like any assault should be treated as such, I believe assault lands you in jail for at least up to 5 years.

What the fuck? I lube up sausage bread with mustard and slide me wanger in and out of it. Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor?

it's all fucked up everywhere.

This reminds of one time I was reading an article in the newspaper and it listed 4 convicted criminals and their sentences. 1. A murderer, 2 a rapist, 3 a child molester, and 4 a drug dealer who was caught with a quarter kilo of cocaine.

The drug dealer got a longer sentence than the other 3 combined, wtf.

No. They deserve nothing.

I'd like to see how you'd feel after getting drunk and waking up with a sore, semen-filled asshole.

And people saying it was your fault for losing control, not their fault for finding your unconscious ass too irresistible to penetrate.

No, because there is no justifying sexual assault...ever. Everyone knows it is wrong. There is no time when sexual assault is necessary to defend yourself. It is inexcusable. Anyone who does it should suffer.

I said yes, because as a general rule I think anyone deserves a second chance (but thy might have to earn it), but mostly I think "sex offender" is no longer a useful category, if it ever was. It covers everything from the worst things you could do to a person short of murder to crimes so trivial they shouldn't even be crimes.

Imagine if people talked about "theft offenders", completely glossing over the fact that the category included everyone from people who take a jelly beans from the bulk candy bins without paying to armed carjackers. That's basically the same situation we've got with sex offenders.

"The plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal, copping a plea, or plea in mitigation) is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor."

"A plea bargain allows both parties to avoid a lengthy criminal trial and may allow criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on a more serious charge."

"Plea bargaining is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority (roughly 90%)of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial."

And what are the facts of that case?

You didn't 'prove me wrong' as there will always be outliers (extreme cases) in any subject but those are exceptions rather than rules and they don't necessarily create a solid basis for attacking the general idea here...and there is also no proof or background information on the example you provided (could be fake, could be exaggerated, she could have deserved the punishment, etc)

People should be able to get high. It doesn't hurt anyone else.

Whooping someone's ass is usually justified. If it's not, then no one has a problem punishing it.

There is never any excuse to rape or sexually abuse anyone. Period.

It depends. Pedophiles should be executed or sentenced to life in prison. Adult on adult rape (or even teen/teen rape) is harder to judge. A lot of he said, she said, we were both drinking scenarios. If s/he put something in the victim's drink, they should serve some time. Violent rapists should also serve time (longer than non-violent rapists) and be castrated.

No, it's more common just to nail someone for child porn or etc... rather than force the victim to testify for rape. So, yeah, we could try him for rape and whatever else but instead of putting the victim through a trial we will just put him through the wringer for the child porn charges. Usually the victim agrees to such an outcome to avoid embarrassment and judgement. Yeah, if I can put him away for a guaranteed 3 years without putting myself through extensive hardship and embarrassment by just agreeing to his child porn plea then ...ok. Because my outlook is worse (he says/she says) and I have to testify and go through hell for what may end up being nothing. Might as well assure he gets SOME time in jail. This is exactly why a conviction for child porn or 'pissing outside' is usually more than just that. It's a compromise, a major one usually, in favor of the offender.

that's fucked up. Get a life sentence and then get released, wtf?

Depends. If the crime was an 18 year old banging a consenting 16 year old or public urination (yes you can be labeled a sex offender for that) or even two 18 plus adults getting caught in public, then yes.

If you rape or molest, no.

romeo and juliet clauses are necessary though. Say a 15 and a 14 year old were dating and went steady for years. Then all the sudden the guy turns 18 now he can't fuck his long term girlfriend, for a year

Depends, once in my school a little kid was expelled for grabbing a girl's tits.

Let's open up the debate for those who are convinced that 'sex offence' means rape and child molestation. Here are a couple of interesting articles:

http://www.solresearch.org/report/Look_Whos_on_Registry_Now

http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2015/04/sex-offender-registry.html

"Depends on if they're a man or a woman." Is what I wanted to say, just to see people's reactions. But since I don't want to get into any trouble, I've got to be honest about this. It really only depends on how severe the crime was. Say if a 20 year old has completely consensual sex with a 17 year old, after his initial legal punishment maybe he could be forgiven over time since it's not really pedophilia. Or, like John said, people who happened to urinate where they weren't supposed to. The punishment should always fit the crime, and one has to make sure to not overdo it.

You all sound like a bunch of cocksuckers to me!

Public urination or taking your genitals out in public? Let's be clear here. Were public urination and open gross lewdness existing seperate offenses in MA in 1986? Why was this man charged with 2 counts of open and gross lewdness and not just public urination? Why did witnesses complain and why did police hunt him down the next day? People (multiple people) witnessed him exposing his genitals either way. Why was he given such a harsh sentence?

Answer the question.

Not moving the goalposts or anything. It's always been a fact that he was charged and convicted of something other than public urination. You're the one who won't accept that.

Were public urination and open and gross lewdness both existing separate legal offenses in the state, and at the time, he was arrested?

"‘There must have been...’ is speculation; try a sentence beginning with ‘there was…’ and you might fare better."

OK. There was enough evidence to convict this man of the charges and give him a rather harsh sentence. A court of law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There you go.

"But he was convicted of open and gross lewdness for urinating in public."

No. That's speculation on your part. He CLAIMS he was just peeing. The state claims otherwise. He got convicted for more than 'just peeing'. Obviously there must have been more evidence AGAINST his claim than for it considering he was found guilty.

"They aren’t ‘points of evidence’; they’re ‘points of speculation’."

It is evidence...what do you think evidence is?

"Asserting something as fact doesn’t make it fact."

No, but if that statement is a fact, then it's a fact. What is your point? The statement in question IS factual.

"He was convicted of open and gross lewdness for urinating in public."

No. He says he was urinating. The state says otherwise. Since he got convicted of something more than public urination, to assume he was only peeing is gross speculation against all evidence.

It's not 'pure speculation' to say criminal cases often end in a plea deal...

He was convicted of 'open and gross lewdness'. That is a fact. You can dismiss all my other points of evidence if you wish but the fact is, he was convicted of 'open and gross lewdness'. So, let's not SPECULATE that he did anything other than what the courts found him guilty of, eh? Since you're such a stickler when it comes to speculation...

true the sytem of relying only on age is flawed but that being said, if we tried to look into everyone's individual age and level of maturity, 1 it would require a ridiculous amount of man power and funding to screen everyone, and two then it's subject to hman bias

The question asked was "should sex offenders get a second chance?"

It's MY opinion and MY choice that no, they should not. This is part of MY belief that there is no excuse for sexual abuse.

I'm open to new ideas but all this rape apologia, minimizing and dismissing my feelings on the matter as fallacious and illogical is not conducive to good discussion.

No, you provided an example of a man who CLAIMS he was 'just peeing'.

He was not on the registry for 'public urination'...his charge/conviction was for 2 counts of 'open and gross lewdness'.

HIS OWN lawyer said (direct quote) "A two-year sentence in this incident is a fairly severe sentence. You'd have to think there's evidence to support that."

"The National Association to Protect Children, which campaigns for protection against child predators, doesn't buy Matamoros' story.

The agency's executive director, Grier Weeks, said some sex offenders offer that same explanation -- that they were just relieving themselves.

Massachusetts is not known as a really tough-on-sex-offenders state," Weeks said. "If they locked up a guy for two months, my guess is there's more to the story."

Being inexcusable, in my opinion, makes the case for no second chance.

I don't even give a fuck if you're mentally ill, you should not get a second chance to re-offend. How does that even work...oh, you fingered my ass uninvited but you're retarded so whatever :/... No. Just because you 'don't know better' doesn't mean you get to run around loose if you're a known surprise butt-fingerer.

"Paul Mishkin, the Boston lawyer who represented Matamoros in 1986, could not recall details of the case this week, but said it was clear the judge considered the incident very serious."He [Matamoros] told his side of the story to the judge, but clearly there was evidence that made the judge disagree," said Mishkin. "A two-year sentence in this incident is a fairly severe sentence. You'd have to think there's evidence to support that."

So, what did he do? Just like I said, there is usually some reason for the charge. He wasn't in all this trouble just for peeing (apparently). "Haverhill police arrested Matamoros the next morning, charging him with two counts of "open and gross lewdness," a charge used when a suspect exposes or touches himself with the intent to shock or scare people."

He claims he was 'just peeing' but it's not adding up. What do the witnesses say he was doing? While it's technically possible he may be getting worked over by the law, it's also VERY possible he was not 'just peeing'. I mean, why would people complain about a man discreetely pissing (most wouldn't) AND why would the cops hunt him down the next day just for whizzing (they wouldn't)...the whole 'just peeing' thing sounds like an excuse. Maybe he made a dumb mistake and ran around screaming with his dick in his hand? Sounds more likely than 'just peeing'. He also seems to have other legal troubles so maybe he is a criminal scumbag? I'm definitely not convinced this man was 'just peeing'. Show me a case where someone actually WAS 'just peeing', not just claiming they were because they got caught with their pants down so to speak. Peeing my ass...

I choose sex offenders since I was discussing this with some other people earlier today. From what I could tell only half them thought they should be forgiven but I'm not sure which side to take.