• 108 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Max_Cherry (1133 posts) -
#2 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

Thats some pretty hard swings. Streaking and then suicide?

#3 Posted by Krullban (1036 posts) -

It is pretty ridiculous that he was threatened to be put on the sex offenders list for streaking.

#4 Edited by JasonR86 (9703 posts) -

@krullban:

People are put on their for exposing themselves. Streaking isn't that much different.

#5 Edited by Brendan (7806 posts) -

The principal seems really harsh, but I'm confused by the boy's actions. Between the streaking and suicide, did he have ant sort of mental or behavioral condition that would lead to this? I'm sorry if I'm being insensitive but both these actions together don't seem to paint a picture of a mentally balanced person.

#6 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3727 posts) -

People need to find a middle ground between calling this "a harmless prank," as the petition does, and calling for a 15 year old child to be forced to register for a sex offender list for the rest of his life.

But if this resulted in only being expelled from the school, and if this kid would not have killed himself, nobody would think twice about this story. Nobody would be calling for the head of the principal. I would also like to know if the principal intended for this kid to have to register for a sex offender list for life, or if that was an unintended consequence of him involving the police. If it was the former, I agree that this man should absolutely lose his job.

It's hard to tell when you're only hearing one side of a story. Either way, I'm sorry to hear that this happened. :(

#7 Edited by jsnyder82 (733 posts) -

I dunno. I just don't see how the principal is responsible, even partly, for the suicide.

#8 Posted by chrissedoff (2097 posts) -

The sex offender registry is immoral and worthless.

Online
#9 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3727 posts) -

I dunno. I just don't see how the principal is responsible, even partly, for the suicide.

Responsible or not is anther matter. But if he really did intend to punish a 15 year old kid for streaking by making him register for a sex offender list for life, I believe he should absolutely be removed from his position of authority.

Although I also believe to paint the principal's actions as purely selfish--as the petition does--is completely disingenuous. He could have been thinking of himself, or he could have been thinking of other students and their families. There's no way to know.

#10 Edited by jsnyder82 (733 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

People need to find a middle ground between calling this "a harmless prank," as the petition does, and calling for a 15 year old child to be forced to register for a sex offender list for the rest of his life.

But if this resulted in only being expelled from the school, and if this kid would not have killed himself, nobody would think twice about this story. Nobody would be calling for the head of the principal. I would also like to know if the principal intended for this kid to have to register for a sex offender list for life, or if that was an unintended consequence of him involving the police. If it was the former, I agree that this man should absolutely lose his job.

It's hard to tell when you're only hearing one side of a story. Either way, I'm sorry to hear that this happened. :(

The principal never called for the kid to be registered. He was simply stating that people often forget that things like this can have potentially bad consequences. And he never even mentioned registering as a sex offender, as far as I can tell. This seems to have all been blown way out of proportion.

#11 Posted by Demoskinos (14824 posts) -

You know I get why we have laws in place to protect kids against sexual deviants but this trend of labeling kids sex offenders because they have nude pictures of themselves or stuff like this is just fucking insane. These laws need to be overhauled its ridiculous that a kid that pulled a simple prank ended up killing himself because of all the scrutiny.

#12 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3727 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

People need to find a middle ground between calling this "a harmless prank," as the petition does, and calling for a 15 year old child to be forced to register for a sex offender list for the rest of his life.

But if this resulted in only being expelled from the school, and if this kid would not have killed himself, nobody would think twice about this story. Nobody would be calling for the head of the principal. I would also like to know if the principal intended for this kid to have to register for a sex offender list for life, or if that was an unintended consequence of him involving the police. If it was the former, I agree that this man should absolutely lose his job.

It's hard to tell when you're only hearing one side of a story. Either way, I'm sorry to hear that this happened. :(

The principal never called for the kid to be registered. He was simply stating that people often forget that things like this can have potentially bad consequences. And he never even mentioned registering as a sex offender, as far as I can tell. This seems to have all been blown way out of proportion.

If this is true, this is why I said that it's hard to tell when you're only hearing one side of a story.

#13 Posted by AgnosticJesus (544 posts) -

@chrissedoff: Especially if you're a child molester. What gives people the right to be warned if someone who has the propensity to diddle kids lives near them?

#14 Posted by Krullban (1036 posts) -

You know I get why we have laws in place to protect kids against sexual deviants but this trend of labeling kids sex offenders because they have nude pictures of themselves or stuff like this is just fucking insane. These laws need to be overhauled its ridiculous that a kid that pulled a simple prank ended up killing himself because of all the scrutiny.

I feel like a sex offenders list shouldn't even exist. Why is there no list for other types of crime? If the person is such a risk to the public that there needs to be a list why are they even back in public in the first place? Not the mention the large amount of people on the list that shouldn't be on the list in the first place.

#15 Posted by CornBREDX (5270 posts) -

I would need an unbiased account of what happened.

Since I definitely wont get that, I'm staying out of it.

Online
#16 Edited by Kidavenger (3548 posts) -

This thread was a lot crazier when I thought it was about stretching (I made it all the way to the 4th post before I figured out how dumb I am).

#17 Posted by rachelepithet (1391 posts) -

Anyone truly necessary to be on a list that warns a village that you're desire in life is to prey on them, and that you have not been cured because taxes can't afford to keep you locked away, probably shouldve been euthanized.

#18 Posted by Ekami (261 posts) -

hey this seems pretty hot button so I'm just popping in to say hi before someone accuses someone else of having a pro-molestation stance, then later, someone is referred to as a "pro-rape hitler"

ok bye

#19 Posted by jayjonesjunior (1090 posts) -

@ekami said:

hey this seems pretty hot button so I'm just popping in to say hi before someone accuses someone else of having a pro-molestation stance, then later, someone is referred to as a "pro-rape hitler"

ok bye

Is that a Hittler that is pro-rape or someone that is pro raping Hittler?

#20 Edited by Brodehouse (9949 posts) -

@boocreepyfootdoctor: This list includes 17 year olds who sleep with their 17 year old partners, people who made a mistake while drunk, or people who are into exhibitionism. But yes, these people should be shunned, exiled and killed. 'Euthanized' yes, because it's really better for them to be killed than to live.

I understand you're being crass and simplistic out of convenience, but maybe save your convenience for situations where you're not calling for other human beings to be killed by the state.

#21 Posted by jsnyder82 (733 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: Yeah, I honestly really feel bad that the kid killed himself, but I feel bad for the principal, too. I don't know the full story, but from everything I've heard so far, he seemed pretty calm about the whole thing, and was only stating that these kinds of incidents can have bad consequences. Which is true, and I definitely believe the whole sex offender registry should be overhauled, as it's a mess.

#22 Posted by HatKing (5947 posts) -

I don't think these people have the slightest fucking clue how depression and suicide work. The principal was a prick about the situation, but he didn't kill him. The media sensationalized a completely mundane prank, but they didn't kill him either. This is insulting to anybody who actually has been close to suicide, either themselves of through somebody they knew.

#23 Posted by Tireyo (6413 posts) -

Born naked, and then died naked!

Seriously this is crazy!

#24 Posted by thebunnyhunter (1417 posts) -

I read that title wrong, i went in thinking he killed himself because he didnt want to streak and bullies were forceing him.

Online
#25 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

You know I get why we have laws in place to protect kids against sexual deviants but this trend of labeling kids sex offenders because they have nude pictures of themselves or stuff like this is just fucking insane. These laws need to be overhauled its ridiculous that a kid that pulled a simple prank ended up killing himself because of all the scrutiny.

Not really. There is no such thing as "judgment". "Judgement" is completely subjective. Our society is built on law and contracts. They exist so that judgment is mitigated as much as possible.

We live in a world that is completely insane, and children are currently some of the biggest pornographers in our society. "Judgement" can't fix it because there is too much grey area and potential for grey area. What If a 16 year old girl sends nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend. Is that distributing pornography? Okay, what if he gives them to his friends? Okay, what if he accidently loses control of it and it gets out there? Okay, what if a third party, who is a grown man, accesses it? What if he doesn't KNOW the girl is underage? What if her parents are okay with it? What if the boys parents aren't okay with it?

It's too much grey area, and it's why we have black and white rules and black and white punishments. One can argue about how that rules and punishments are being applied, but that should just mean that they become more clear or more strict, not more fluid or more grey.

One person's "prank" is another persons "sexual assault".

#26 Posted by Yummylee (21629 posts) -

I've been awake for 21 hours straight, so my initial reading of the title lead to me thinking this was about a kid that killed himself after getting a bunch of kill streaks in Call of Duty...

#27 Posted by StarvingGamer (8233 posts) -

As shitty as this whole thing is, it's hard to take a petition with grammatical errors in the name seriously.

#28 Posted by leinad44 (513 posts) -

Seems like we're only getting one side of the story. We need to wait for more facts.

#29 Edited by Itwongo (1198 posts) -

@jazgalaxy: http://m.dictionary.com/definition/judgment

Unrelated to the topic at hand, but still....

#30 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@itwongo said:

@jazgalaxy: http://m.dictionary.com/definition/judgment

Unrelated to the topic at hand, but still....

I don't understand why you posted that. Contextually I would say it's because you're suggesting I was using the word "judgment" wrong, but those definitions support exactly how I used the word judgment. Which isn't news, seeing as how I and everyone else knows what the word judgment means.

O_o

#31 Edited by MildMolasses (3221 posts) -
@jazgalaxy said:

What If a 16 year old girl sends nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend.

  • Is that distributing (Child) pornography? YES
  • Okay, what if he gives them to his friends? YES
  • Okay, what if he accidently loses control of it and it gets out there? YES
  • Okay, what if a third party, who is a grown man, accesses it? YES
  • What if he doesn't KNOW the girl is underage? YES
  • What if her parents are okay with it? YES
  • What if the boys parents aren't okay with it? YES

None of those are grey area, subjective "judgements"

#32 Posted by Itwongo (1198 posts) -

@jazgalaxy: you disputed the existence of the word in favor of "judgement," when the two are synonymous.

#33 Posted by Demoskinos (14824 posts) -

@jazgalaxy: Well that is exactly it. There IS a lit of grey area and simple black and white laws are lazy ways of dealing with it. By the logic being put forth here anyone who has a sibling should be a registered sex offender because EVERYONE who has a brother or sister has seen them naked at one point or another. A lot of ways these laws are implemented now are lazy. If a teen murders someone good chance that he will be tried as an juvinile and not an adult unless the crime is especially henious. So why should simple streaking put a kid on a list with other adult sex offenders that actually raped/molested people? There needs to be more granularity in the laws when dealing with teenagers.

#34 Posted by TheHBK (5485 posts) -

This kid commits suicide because he is so afraid of the worst case scenario. Public exposure is an offense that can result in having to register as a sex offender. Witch hunt? There was no denying he did it, so what is the problem here? That the principal laid out the possible ways this could play out... just like his lawyer would? Not like people at his school wouldn't know who he was.

#35 Posted by Budwyzer (579 posts) -

Choices: 1) Go streaking, 2) Don't go streaking - Kid chose to go streaking

Choices: 1) Kill yourself, 2) Don't kill yourself - Kid chose to kill himself

Choices: 1) Hit the breaks and avoid the kid in the street, 2) Don't hit the breaks and just keep going - Probably would have made the wrong choice there too.

Verdict: The Principle saved who knows how many other lives

#36 Posted by Brodehouse (9949 posts) -

@demoskinos: Black and white laws are actually a workaround for grey areas. You seem to be misunderstanding this. The most any just society can do regarding their laws, whatever they are, is make sure people are aware of them, make sure they are applied fairly, and grant people a method to change them if most dislike them. They absolutely cannot select themselves special arbitration powers for each specific person to use as they see fit, you can't allow people's rights and responsibilities to a state come down to a personal decision made by a single agent of that state.

It is not that law lacks granularity, or that it's applied in an unequal matter (at least not in this case), it's that people don't feel the penalty for specific actions is warranted anymore... not that treating specific actions as black-and-white is wrong. The law is actually exceedingly granular, and it becomes that through these processes.

#37 Posted by Zomgfruitbunnies (784 posts) -

We all see a dick at some point in our lives. This is clearly a huge deal.

#38 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@jazgalaxy said:

What If a 16 year old girl sends nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend.

  • Is that distributing (Child) pornography? YES
  • Okay, what if he gives them to his friends? YES
  • Okay, what if he accidently loses control of it and it gets out there? YES
  • Okay, what if a third party, who is a grown man, accesses it? YES
  • What if he doesn't KNOW the girl is underage? YES
  • What if her parents are okay with it? YES
  • What if the boys parents aren't okay with it? YES

None of those are grey area, subjective "judgements"

They're not grey areas TO YOU. But that was my whole point in saying just those things. Recent stories have elicited arguments from people who say that a girlfriend sending naked pictures to her boyfriend isn't disseminating pornography because they're in a relationship and shouldn't be treated as such. There are those who take the opposite position on everything you just listed "yes" to, which is why situations like this can't be determined by individuals judgment. They need black and white, universally applied rules, which is why, going back to the original comment I was replying to, it makes total sense for children to be able to labeled sex offenders. We just need to educate children better about the fact that, just like shoplifting will land you in jail, so will sending naked pictures of yourself just because you want attention.

#39 Edited by chrissedoff (2097 posts) -

@agnosticjesus said:

@chrissedoff: Especially if you're a child molester. What gives people the right to be warned if someone who has the propensity to diddle kids lives near them?

And yet criminals have the right to not continue to receive punishment after they have served out their sentence. If child molesters are, on a large scale, being released into society without having been adequately reformed or deterred, then that represents a problem with the justice system that can't and won't be remedied by permanently diminishing an offender's rights, which sets a horrible precedent. This is, of course, to say nothing of the fact that the outrageously inclusive nature of sex offender registries has essentially nullified any usefulness they might have had because for every child rapist there's ten people who pissed in an alley, squeezed somebody's butt on the street or mooned a cop or something.

Online
#40 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@demoskinos: Black and white laws are actually a workaround for grey areas. You seem to be misunderstanding this. The most any just society can do regarding their laws, whatever they are, is make sure people are aware of them, make sure they are applied fairly, and grant people a method to change them if most dislike them. They absolutely cannot select themselves special arbitration powers for each specific person to use as they see fit, you can't allow people's rights and responsibilities to a state come down to a personal decision made by a single agent of that state.

It is not that law lacks granularity, or that it's applied in an unequal matter (at least not in this case), it's that people don't feel the penalty for specific actions is warranted anymore... not that treating specific actions as black-and-white is wrong. The law is actually exceedingly granular, and it becomes that through these processes.

You said what I was trying to say with much more eloquence.

#41 Posted by AgnosticJesus (544 posts) -

@chrissedoff: You'd probably feel different if you were a parent and a child molester moved in a few houses down from you. Those convicted of sexual offenses are more likely to be repeat offenders. Not really sure how someone could defend sex offenders but that's your choice. I seriously doubt anyone is a registered sex offender from mooning the police. You should have used you old wise tale that if you get caught pudding in a park at night you'll end up one the registry instead.

#42 Edited by AMyggen (3035 posts) -

@krullban: Of course it shouldn't exist, and it's a very American thing. Does other countries even have such a list? I can't recall any European ones, at least. I doubt there's any meaningful statistics on how a list like that has actually prevented crimes, it's just another example of the American justice system not letting people get a second chance, which probably contributes to why within two years of release, between 50-60% of American ex-inmates end up back in jail. The American justice system is, on some level, fucked, with its focus on punishment before anything else, which at the end of the day is good for no one, especially not the society.

#43 Posted by Dagbiker (6976 posts) -

I always thought it weird that people expect crimanls to be better human beings, or at least less likly to commet crimes, after they have been sent to jail, filled with other criminals, had little, or no communication with any one else for who knows how long, and shuned when they exit.

You arnt punishing them, you are punishing me. You are taking away their future, and providing them with the knowledge to not get caught next time. Giving them more reason to do it again.

#44 Posted by spraynardtatum (2943 posts) -

Super sad. I hope the kids family can deal with their loss in peace

#45 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@amyggen said:

@krullban: Of course it shouldn't exist, and it's a very American thing. Does other countries even have such a list? I can't recall any European ones, at least. I doubt there's any meaningful statistics on how a list like that has actually prevented crimes, it's just another example of the American justice system not letting people get a second chance, which probably contributes to why within two years of release, between 50-60% of American ex-inmates end up back in jail. The American justice system is, on some level, fucked, with its focus on punishment before anything else, which at the end of the day is good for no one, especially not the society.

When it's common if not expected that every woman in a country like Japan is to be molested/raped at some point in her life... I'm not really all that interested in how other countries do things.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/International/story?id=803965

I wish I could find the article I read years ago where the prime minister actually had to make a public address to tell men to stop molesting women.

#46 Edited by chrissedoff (2097 posts) -

@chrissedoff: You'd probably feel different if you were a parent and a child molester moved in a few houses down from you. Those convicted of sexual offenses are more likely to be repeat offenders. Not really sure how someone could defend sex offenders but that's your choice. I seriously doubt anyone is a registered sex offender from mooning the police. You should have used you old wise tale that if you get caught pudding in a park at night you'll end up one the registry instead.

I'm defending them only to the extent that I value logical and moral consistency and that I favor effective policies more than I do the gratification of making sex offenders suffer. I'm not defending their actions, but that should be nakedly apparent to any reasonably intelligent person.

Online
#47 Edited by AgnosticJesus (544 posts) -

@chrissedoff: You're seriously going to try and insult my intelligence after making such an ignorant statement as " the gratification of making sex offenders suffer". The victim is the one that truly suffers for the rest of their life, not the offender. One made a choice to commit a heinous act, the other didn't choose to be a victim.

#48 Posted by jsnyder82 (733 posts) -

@chrissedoff: You're seriously going to try and insult my intelligence after making such an ignorant statement as " the gratification of making sex offenders suffer". The victim is the one that truly suffers for the rest of their life, not the offender. One made a choice to commit a heinous act, the other didn't choose to be a victim.

He wasn't defending sex offenders, and you're coming off as a bit of a dick. Just coming from an outsider's perspective.

#49 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@chrissedoff: You're seriously going to try and insult my intelligence after making such an ignorant statement as " the gratification of making sex offenders suffer". The victim is the one that truly suffers for the rest of their life, not the offender. One made a choice to commit a heinous act, the other didn't choose to be a victim.

I'm on your side, but the term sex offender is very broad, which is what the original poster was talking about. A streaker is, clearly, not the same as a child rapist, or something like that.

#50 Posted by AMyggen (3035 posts) -

@jazgalaxy: I don't see the relevance of bringing up Japan here, really. First of all, we're talking about child molesters here, you're talking about rape in general. Secondly, the Japanese society is infamous for its views on women, no doubt, but does that make this part of the American system any better? The point should be if these lists actually work, and if not, if there's a point other than to continute punishing people after they've served their punishment.