The following is a copy of a discussion that I was involved with on Facebook. It started with my comment in response to someone joining a cause titled
Keep Sex Offenders Off the InternetI feel that type of group does not do any good. It unfairly utilises the term "sex offenders" when they are really targeting paedophiles (if you don't know the difference, get educated!) and takes its members down the road of
"society is to blame, I am not responsible for my children, I am helpless, the Government must do something".
Collin Mullane at 23:24 on 15 February(this is not directed at you, but at the group)
... and keep them out of parks too, and they shouldn't be using telephones either, or driving cars, or allowed in shopping centres or on sporting fields.
Hell, let's just ban them from getting on with their lives after they've paid the penalty for their actions. (insert sarcasm)
Sara --------- at 10:50 on 16 February
The physcology required to commit sexual offences against children, is not something which can be asumed rectified after the serving of sentence, the autonomy offered by the internet and the potential for inappropriate and deliberate targeting of children for perverse pleasure is something the community should do more to prevent. Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child.
Any access to internet by convicted child offenders ought to be limited by security software to general sites and their pornographic activities limited to sites which are monitored by appropriate authorities for any material which might be considered to be of concern.
Sara --------- at 11:00 on 16 February
In regards to Prison visit rooms, the dept of corrections and the countrys legislative policy regarding the same are considered to be in keeping with the priority of child protection. My understanding is that those prisoners who are considered of concern in terms of children are not able to have visitors attend the prison on those visits which are accepting of kids. There are specific child accepting visits and non child accepting visits available at all dept of Corrections facilities. In addition to this specific method of Child protection, I and I know I speak for many other of the beautiful girls who visit partners reguarly, have the sort of personal protection available to me in this forum that would intimidate any potential problem to my child. For anyone who isnt sure what I just said, my partner is sufficently fit, healthy, and capable to be a deterant to any person that might be a problem to me or any member of his kin.
Collin Mullane at 11:24 on 16 FebruarySarah - if you wish to absolve yourself of responsibility and instead place it firmly on the shoulders of society, you fail as a parent and as a citizen (in my arrogant opinion).
Your argument is no different to another parent allowing their child to fend for themselves alone at home while they go out to work and then blaming society when the house burns down.
It _IS__YOUR__RESPONSIBILITY to know what your children are watching on tv, what books they are reading, the friends they hang with, AND what they do on the Internet.
As with the television and DVDs, the Internet is NOT designed to act as your free babysitter.
Collin Mullane at 11:32 on 16 FebruaryAs for the offenders:
According to your argument we should also restrict all murderers from watching murder movies or going to forensic or news websites in case they get ideas! Perhaps recidivist speeders or car thieves should be banned from going to the speedway or playing Grand Theft Auto? I could make an endless list of similar ridiculous suggestions.
No-one can truly know if someone has been rehabilitated in prison, in a psychiatric hospital or as a result of lengthy therapy sessions - the same applies to addicts (drug, gambling, other) as it does to sex offenders or any other criminal. We must allow justice to prevail and for offenders to either redeem themselves (as most do) or re-offend, in which case we try again.
Censorship and nanny-state regulation will not stop crime. Education, understanding and helping to provide equity and equality across society WILL.
Sara --------- at 08:29 on 17 February
Colin - Good morning.
In regards to Murderers and the watching of violent crime, the length of sentence in these cases is far higher than it is for sexual and predatory but passive (phsycological) crime. Often the offenders of violent crime, do not infact see the light of day again. And here I speak of the crime of Murder (denoting premedatation) not felony murder, unlawful killing, manslaughter, the lesser crimes where a definate intention to kill can not be substanciated.
Simplifying the argument like you have is the equivelant of sensationalism, not uncommon in a media savvy, over educated middle class ruled society. Bearing in mind that you yourself have brought the subject up within a public forum you need to be prepared for the inevitability that many people with a wider reaching knowledged of the subject matter may just have something to say. The problem here is that it may be necessary for you to expand your understanding versus make unchallenged propegatory statement.
Sara --------- at 08:38 on 17 February
In your second paragraph you made the statement that Justice must prevail. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point. Justice is not the process by which the offending serve terms of punishment toward reinstated freedom. Justice is the term applied to a procedure which best serves the society/community interests after the commiting of an offence against the interest of that same group.
Your arguments are somewhat transparent and if I was going to cast a critical literary eye apon them I would say, unplanned and largely unresearched. You seem to shift intermitantly between arguments as the subject matter in places is directly contridictory. This can happen when a definate position is not held and a secondary motive for your statement or work is its primary reasoning.
Clearly you have a definate interest in the advocacy of child sex offenders that is an interesting position.
Sara --------- at 08:48 on 17 February
As stated in the first response to your initial posting, it is my personal beleif, that the offender of child sex offenses does commit an act against a physically and mentally inferior person and indeed a minor which as group the community has declared unable to adequately protect itself. They are targeted because they are physically too insignificant to protect themselves. These acts are usually by virtue calculated, prolonged and therefore quite definately premediated and unprovoked.
I feel the entrapment of children for perverse pleasure is a crime far exceeding any normal physcological pattern. Whilst I and im sure you may have thrown a slap or abusive word in a heated moment, an undeniable similar thread to violent crime. Personally I myself do not entertain any ideology which incorporates the victimisation of children.
Sara --------- at 08:52 on 17 February
Colin - have a nice day.
All the best for your Child Sex Offender Advocacy, im sure that particular minority feels the less isolated for your friendship and support.
Meanwhile - my position - stay away from my child coz like I said, violent crime is something I think all persons with enough motivation are capable.
Cheers
Collin Mullane at 09:48 on 17 FebruaryLOL ... you missed my point entirely (or deliberately evaded it) and your condescending tone, decision to argue odd points, and attempt to paint me as a supporter of child abuse simply detracts from the debate and is a poor attempt to wriggle out of the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to care for your children.
Are you Australian? Felony Murder is a term commonly used in the USA, but no longer in most of Australia. Perhaps you watch too much imported TV ;-)
I choose to simplify arguments because most of the populace can't deal with complex issues, particularly where fundamentalism and conservatism reign. Thank you for demonstrating that point.
I do not need to give my credentials on debating this matter, suffice to say that I advocate for (holistic) justice, not simply retribution as you would seek out. You appear to have a personal hatred for sex offenders, likely due to being a victim or being close to one. I'm sorry to see that has clouded your judgement.
.... (cont)
Collin Mullane at 10:03 on 17 FebruaryI think your final comments are offensive and technically libellous. Again another attempt to discredit me and shift focus away from the debating the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
If you wish to attack my points, do so carefully and specifically, rather than to alluding to some contradictions that don't actually exist, but which the casual reader may accept as truth because they would rather follow a mantra of "you're with me, or against me". than risk being labelled as you have done to me. Classic bully tactics.
However, if you wish to debate my original points I'll be glad to respond.
The debate is about censorship of the internet for specific people. The Internet is a medium very much like television and press, with the exception that it relies on openness and accessibility. With that comes the need for respect and responsibility. You cannot abrogate your duties as a parent to someone else. The Internet is not a babysitter.
Collin Mullane at 11:34 on 17 FebruaryTo bring the debate to a fine point, my argument stems from this comment of yours:
"Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child."
The point I am striving to drive home is that you DO and SHOULD have to worry. Leaving your child unattended on the Internet amounts to neglect, and is not dissimilar to allowing them to watch porn or R rated movies, let alone leaving them alone in a shopping centre to talk to whomever approaches.
If you can show me the difference, you may just win a part of the argument.
Sara --------- at 11:43 on 17 February
How my children became the real issue of a debate/discussion on "Sex offender access to the internet" is something only you could explain I am sure. It would appear to be a change of topic and it would not be difficult to ascertain the reasoning behind such an attempt.
In regards to the almost stage performance accusation of their being a American television watching illiterate, sorry again - wrong.
Actually I am a student of law and assure you felony murder is still a sentencing title in this country. It is employed in all states of Australia as a product of case law/precedent argument. It is used to argue where they may not have been a direct premeditated intent to kill, but where it was a known likelihood of a personal decission to commit offence.
You refer to the wider populace as not being capable to deal with complex issues. If you deny them the opportunity by simplifying complex issues, then certainly they can not.
Sara --------- at 11:51 on 17 February
If you however inform any reader throughout your presentation of the facts then a contentious issue is most certainly within their understanding and capability to reason.
My response was not meant to aggrevate you Colin but rather to suggest that in a world which increasingly utilizes the internet for everyday activities, including school education, we as a community have reached a stage where the protection of those unable to necessarily protect themselves should be given consideration, specifically in regards to those persons previously convicted of sexual offense.
Studies of Criminal Behaviour and in particular Child sex offender, have a startling rate of re-offense. The fact that we the empowered society and its institutions are aware by analysis that the likelihood of re offence is considerable (and considerably higher than the other offences you have chosen to highlight) do you not think some supervision of their internet activity is appropriate?
Collin Mullane at 11:54 on 17 FebruaryMy god, woman! YOU brought your children into the debate, not me.
For friggin sake - go back and read your response to my original posting.
In the meantime I will produce a clear analysis of the debate pathway and repost so that you don't get lost in the future. Don't have time now, but will try to do so this afternoon.
Sara --------- at 12:01 on 17 February
I agree with you Colin that consideration should be given to the fact that the serving of sentence should afford the opportunity to rehabilitate, it is one of the foundations of Common Law. Unfortunately not all crimes can be considered like and when we come to the advances of society like the internet the law needs to be amended to do that which it is employed to, protect. If the liberties of a previously convicted persons of crimes considered predatory need to be restricted to best serve the wider interests of the community, then whilst I can sympathise with a minority I can not put their interests before the "group - humankind"
So I guess we agree to disagree, I feel that restriction in the case of Sexual offense is appropriate and that those persons to which it would apply should not be given access to public speaking forums where they might be able to have inappropriate relations with a child in any school class room accross the country. Where the internet is now a part.
Sara --------- at 12:06 on 17 February
Colin please accept my apologies for anything I may have included which you found personally offensive. I realize your arguments are in reality aligned with some of my own. The serving of sentence should afford those who are the minority an opportunity to re enter society.
But where this poses a threat which is more likely than it is just possible, then, I think further consideration/restriction/policy is needed.
Im sorry you thought my comments were condescending - your a bit pompus yourself.......:-)
Sara --------- at 12:14 on 17 February
Colin, Colin, Colin, I bought children into the topic as a direct user of the Internet and therefore a potential target of those persons being discussed. You utilized to begin a debate about parents using the internet as a babysitter. (Which I consider rude in the extreme.) You are suggesting by virtue of your argument that childrens use of the internet (which is educational no matter what it is being used for) should be restricted and limited to accomodate sex offenders. Mate that is what you said. And you think my use of the word advocate is inaccurate.
As I stated in the previous, it was not my intention to aggrevate you into an argument. As discussion could not be said to be possible as you keep refencing issues outside the topic, I think the exchange has run its course. I wont be make further comment and feel that all stated prior speaks for itself.
Good day to you sir!
Collin Mullane at 17:01 on 17 FebruaryIndeed
.jpg)