Sex offender in restricted ports

[Cruiser_1977]

@SRF not sure why you quoted me. My response seems to echo your posts in #96 and #97. Maybe it was to agree about the "much milder" reasons to be on a list?

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 8/2/2019 at 3:31 PM, clo said:

Golly gee, I'm seeing parallels to 45.

 

And I like the comment upthread about the friend who's a registered sex offender he once peed on the street.

 

Nice, you insulted my beliefs and now calling names.  From the great ethicist.  

Lots of people are on the list for more than peeing in public.  But by all means use the infrequent outlier to whitewash the whole list and justify putting people (children) at risk.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Toofarfromthesea

[SRF]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Nice, you insulted my beliefs and now calling names.  From the great ethicist.  

Lots of people are on the list for more than peeing in public.  But by all means use the infrequent outlier to whitewash the whole list and justify putting people (children) at risk.

 

And you are using the worst case against everyone on the list.

 

Heck, even for the worst offenders, not all of them are pedophiles.  Some of them may be perfectly behaved with children.

 

 

[broberts]

36 minutes ago, SRF said:

And you are using the worst case against everyone on the list.

 

Without individual details is that not the prudent approach?

[DarrenM]

On 8/2/2019 at 2:32 PM, SRF said:

 

So all criminals should be left in prison or put to death?

 

 

Sex offenders against children should, yes.

[Nic6318]

1 hour ago, SRF said:

 

And you are using the worst case against everyone on the list.

 

Heck, even for the worst offenders, not all of them are pedophiles.  Some of them may be perfectly behaved with children.

 

 

 

 

Hi

 

Yes, as you say not all of them are pedophiles. Some of them are just your run of the mill rapists. 

 

Again...come on people. All we are talking about here is the fact that countries restrict entry to people who have been convicted of certain crime. For anyone on this site to suggest that someone should even consider circumventing restrictions without proper legal advice is irresponsible.

 

How you or anyone else on this forum feels about how individuals should be treated after serving their sentence is irrelevant. 

[mom says]

29 minutes ago, Nic6318 said:

 

For anyone on this site to suggest that someone should even consider circumventing restrictions without proper legal advice is irresponsible.

 

How you or anyone else on this forum feels about how individuals should be treated after serving their sentence is irrelevant. 

I agree with you and go one step further. Suggesting a convicted sex offender attempt to circumvent the restrictions placed on them  is akin to aiding and abetting. Circumventing carries a subersive or surreptitions hum about it and seems to skirt alwfully close to illegality.Travelling within their restrictions is a whole different matter. 

[sfaaa]

2 hours ago, SRF said:

 

And you are using the worst case against everyone on the list.

 

Heck, even for the worst offenders, not all of them are pedophiles.  Some of them may be perfectly behaved with children.

 

 

Who cares. They XXXX up. Throw the book at them and make them pay.

[clo]

14 minutes ago, sfaaa said:

Who cares. They XXXX up. Throw the book at them and make them pay.

Aren't we talking about people who have already paid?

[mom says]

3 minutes ago, clo said:

Aren't we talking about people who have already paid?

So you're OK with a rapist living next door to your teenaged daughter, or a voyeur hanging out at the pool or beach next to you? Or, yes, turning a pedophile loose in a foreign country? Actions, and crimes, should have consequences ,  and some should come with societal consequences that long outlast  the jail time. Until such time as the public urinaters are sentences under a different classification ( and I wouldn't oppose that), then they have to man up and live with the consequences of their idiocy. 

[clo]

2 minutes ago, mom says said:

So you're OK with a rapist living next door to your teenaged daughter, or a voyeur hanging out at the pool or beach next to you? Or, yes, turning a pedophile loose in a foreign country? Actions, and crimes, should have consequences ,  and some should come with societal consequences that long outlast  the jail time. Until such time as the public urinaters are sentences under a different classification ( and I wouldn't oppose that), then they have to man up and live with the consequences of their idiocy. 

Oh my.

[ducklite]

OP--Depending on what your actual crime was, you might be able to get an expungement, particularly if the crime you were convicted of years ago would no longer be considered a crime under "Romeo & Juliet" or other current statutes.  This is typically a drawn out process, and if you qualify it could take several years.

 

Aside from that--and I am not a lawyer--I would not even try to enter the territorial waters of a country that would not permit me to enter, even if you have no intention of getting off the ship.  The local police have the right to board, search, and remove people that they consider criminals, and the last way I'd want to end my holiday is on the wrong side of the bars in a Mexican (or other) prison.

[SRF]

21 hours ago, Nic6318 said:

 

 

Hi

 

Yes, as you say not all of them are pedophiles. Some of them are just your run of the mill rapists. 

 

Again...come on people. All we are talking about here is the fact that countries restrict entry to people who have been convicted of certain crime. For anyone on this site to suggest that someone should even consider circumventing restrictions without proper legal advice is irresponsible.

 

How you or anyone else on this forum feels about how individuals should be treated after serving their sentence is irrelevant. 

 

And some urinated in an alley.

 

Do you think that warrants the same situation as a rapist?

[SRF]

20 hours ago, sfaaa said:

Who cares. They XXXX up. Throw the book at them and make them pay.

 

And we should tar and feather speeders?

 

How about left lane hogs?

 

REALLY????
 

You have NEVER broken ANY law?  Never made a mistake in your life?   You must be the second son of God.

 

And BTW, I guarantee you have broken SOME law, as there are many laws that if you follow one, you break another and vice versa.

[sfaaa]

1 hour ago, SRF said:

 

And we should tar and feather speeders?

 

How about left lane hogs?

 

REALLY????
 

You have NEVER broken ANY law?  Never made a mistake in your life?   You must be the second son of God.

 

And BTW, I guarantee you have broken SOME law, as there are many laws that if you follow one, you break another and vice versa.

No I have never committed any sex crime, am not on sex offender registry or ruined somebody's life for doing despicable things to them. Thank you for your concern.

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, SRF said:

How about left lane hogs?

 

Yes!!!!

[ed01106]

22 hours ago, mom says said:

So you're OK with a rapist living next door to your teenaged daughter, or a voyeur hanging out at the pool or beach next to you? Or, yes, turning a pedophile loose in a foreign country? Actions, and crimes, should have consequences ,  and some should come with societal consequences that long outlast  the jail time. Until such time as the public urinaters are sentences under a different classification ( and I wouldn't oppose that), then they have to man up and live with the consequences of their idiocy. 

I am okay with living next to a mom of three kids who when she was 17 yo went skinny dipping with a group of a friends.  The youngest of the group were 14 and friends with her younger brother, my neighbor was convicted of perversion of a minor  because of the age difference.  She is a registered sex offender.  For this crime she can not go to her own children's school events.  

 

She never spent time in jail.  When she plead guilty she was sentenced to 10 hours of community service.  Three years after the incident the state changed the law to add her crime to the sex offenders list. The original DA, judge and “victims” have all written letters stating she doesn’t belong on a sex offenders list but the law has no provision for removal.  

 

I am not only okay with living next door to her, her kids are friends with my kids and my children have slept over her house.  

 

[Aquahound]

17 minutes ago, ed01106 said:

I am okay with living next to a mom of three kids who when she was 17 yo went skinny dipping with a group of a friends.  The youngest of the group were 14 and friends with her younger brother, my neighbor was convicted of perversion of a minor  because of the age difference.  She is a registered sex offender.  For this crime she can not go to her own children's school events.  

 

She never spent time in jail.  When she plead guilty she was sentenced to 10 hours of community service.  Three years after the incident the state changed the law to add her crime to the sex offenders list. The original DA, judge and “victims” have all written letters stating she doesn’t belong on a sex offenders list but the law has no provision for removal.  

 

I am not only okay with living next door to her, her kids are friends with my kids and my children have slept over her house.  

 

 

Perversion of minor when she, herself, was a minor?  What state is this?  Yes, if that story is accurate as told, those are some messed up laws to allow a relatively minor act as a juvenile to morph into lifelong sex offender registry.  I'd take that one to the state supreme court.

[Nic6318]

4 hours ago, SRF said:

 

And we should tar and feather speeders?

 

How about left lane hogs?

 

REALLY????
 

You have NEVER broken ANY law?  Never made a mistake in your life?   You must be the second son of God.

 

And BTW, I guarantee you have broken SOME law, as there are many laws that if you follow one, you break another and vice versa.

 

Hi

 

Sorry, you are losing it.

 

This whole discussion revolves around crimes that make you inadmissible to enter certain countries.

 

What has that to do with speeders?  

 

We aren't judging anyone. It is the court system that has already done that. If you have an issue, direct it in the right direction and it might accomplish something. Your arguments don't change anything here. This is a travel forum, more specifically cruising. 

[ducklite]

2 hours ago, sfaaa said:

No I have never committed any sex crime, am not on sex offender registry or ruined somebody's life for doing despicable things to them. Thank you for your concern.

You don't know what the poster did or didn't do.  For all you know he was an 18 year old doing the same thing he had been doing for two years with his 17 year old girlfriend.  The only difference was a date on a calendar.  Prior to our lawmakers getting a few ounces of brain material--it used to be illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with a 17 year 11 month year old.  So did sex between homosexuals, or even certain sex acts that the majority of consenting adults engage in as a normal course of lovemaking.  

 

While I personally think that there should be a death penalty for certain sex crimes (provided absolute irrefutable scientific  evidence of the crime exists), I also know that in the past, there were many things against the law that no longer are--and for good reason.  

 

Unless you personally know the OP and what their history is, it seems that your statements are worthless in the context of this thread.

[ducklite]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

Perversion of minor when she, herself, was a minor?  What state is this?  Yes, if that story is accurate as told, those are some messed up laws to allow a relatively minor act as a juvenile to morph into lifelong sex offender registry.  I'd take that one to the state supreme court.

Unfortunately I've read more than a few cases like this.  Some of the luckier people have been able to get expungements or have been able to get the conviction overturned, but it takes time and money, something many people don't have.

 

Not sex crimes, but the Rockefeller Drug Laws in New York back in the 70's locked up people who were convicted of non-violent possession of small (personal use) amounts of drugs for longer than someone who robbed a gas station at gunpoint. Fortunately they took a second look at the ridiculous mandatory sentences and changed the laws in 2004--but not until thousands had spend 20 years in jail for possession of five hits of LSD.  

[broberts]

7 hours ago, ed01106 said:

I am not only okay with living next door to her, her kids are friends with my kids and my children have slept over her house.  

 

How in the world does this bear on the admissibility of someone to a country that considers DUI a criminal offense?

[ducklite]

8 hours ago, broberts said:

 

How in the world does this bear on the admissibility of someone to a country that considers DUI a criminal offense?

Canada bars entry to US Citizens who have had a DUI.  

[SRF]

18 hours ago, Nic6318 said:

 

Hi

 

Sorry, you are losing it.

 

This whole discussion revolves around crimes that make you inadmissible to enter certain countries.

 

What has that to do with speeders?  

 

We aren't judging anyone. It is the court system that has already done that. If you have an issue, direct it in the right direction and it might accomplish something. Your arguments don't change anything here. This is a travel forum, more specifically cruising. 

 

The point is, there are sex offenders and there are sex offenders.

 

It is not ONE crime.  Urinating in the alley should be a life sentence?  Or skinning dipping?

 

Yes, there are rapists and pedophiles on the list also.  But the list does not separate those.

 

And you have situations like the one, where the person plead guilty for some community service, then later, an ex post facto law was passed that made this person a sex offender.

 

Funny that a murderer serves their sentence and it not on a public list and not restricted from doing many things, but someone peeing in an alley is branded for life.

[ldubs]

13 hours ago, broberts said:

 

How in the world does this bear on the admissibility of someone to a country that considers DUI a criminal offense?

 

Sliding off topic here but I hope all countries consider DUI a criminal offense.