Sex offender working as a firefighter, Should he be fired?

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-03-02 10:41am

Thinking about it some more, I've decided that the "No" camp is for me pretty much regardless of the actual actions which got him convicted since under such a charge its almost certain that he didn't do anything violent or against the wishes of the minor (the minor not being able to give consent of course).

I would still like to know what he did, if only so that I know wether to categorise the woman protesting (since she obviusly knows what happened) as a shrilling fucktard (in case of the previusly mentioned 17 year old porn actress) or as something somewhat more sane (if he, for instance, made tapes at the beach).

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-03-02 11:35am

Why shouldn't sex offenders work for the fire service? As long as they aren’t visiting schools and so forth giving talks on fire safety I can’t see an reason why not.

If they are barred from the fire service what other jobs that don’t involve access to children would also forbidden for them? Paedophiles who’ve served their time need to earn a living like everybody else.

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2006-03-02 12:21pm

Found this.

Cathy Sherrard knows a different picture of Lanford -- the one from the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry. He's a "move-in" offender from Kansas, where he served three years in prison in the mid- 90s after being convicted of fondling a child less than 14, and having sex with a girl less than 16.

So, if it's a girl less than 16, does that mean fourteen or fifteen years old? I mean, if she were less than 14, wouldn't it list it as 'a child less than 14' on the sex charge?

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2006-03-02 12:31pm

However, that information might not be correct. The Kentucky Sex-Offender Registry only lists him with the 'USE OF A MINOR IN A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE' crime.

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2006-03-02 12:55pm

Sorry for the triple post, but the Kansas State Sex-Offender Registry has him on file with:

Aggravated Indecent Liberties/Child <14;Fondling

Aggravated Indecent Liberties,GE14<16,Sex Intercou

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2006-03-02 03:24pm

The funny thing is that in might very well be the case that in germany he would not have comitted a crime.
It is legal to have sexual intercourse with a 14 year old if you do not exploit a lack of sexual self-determination.
(there are other stipulation regarding money paid, pictures taken, movies made or being in a position of authority, lack of sexual-determination or existance of such is determined by an examination by an psychologist).

But even then, he fucked up, he paid the prices, and story is over.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-03-02 03:55pm

Ok, so its basicly statutory rape? Kinda strange for the official charge to be "USE OF A MINOR IN A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE". Seems there was a fuckup in the transfer of records between the states...

Anyway, while kinda inapropriate (he was 27 at the time if my math is correct), it is definatly a case of a benign offender (if he could even be called that in many countries - our laws on the matter are pretty similar to Germany's, for example) so its definatly a NO to the poll and a classification of "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN" fucktard for the woman.

Post by **Kuja** » 2006-03-02 06:33pm

No, he should most certainly not be fired. He did the crime, he did the time, he hasn't backslid.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-02 06:45pm

His behavior wouldn't really constitute "abuse", which makes the woman's protests even more jackassed. Sure, it was inappropriate, but he's obviously rehabilitated and contributing to society.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-03-02 09:02pm

Someone needs to ask her if she instead thinks that the taxpayers should foot the bill for his room and board for the rest of his days.

Coalition · Post by **Coalition** » 2006-03-04 07:29am

If they want to look up to him as a firefighter, then yes. Even better is if he can tell them that he did wrong, what the wrong was, and that even if you do wrong, it is still possible to help others.

Tie it into the forgiveness of sin, and he can have the local fundies fighting on his side.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-03-04 08:34am

Coalition wrote:Tie it into the forgiveness of sin, and he can have the local fundies fighting on his side.

HA! The fundies won't neccesarily side with him. Unless he becomes "born again", that is.

Agemegos · Post by **Agemegos** » 2006-03-11 04:40am

SirNitram wrote:In a wierd kind of way, he is a role model. After all, instead of getting worse in prison, as is too often the case, he's come away from it, not re-offended, and taken up a career that saves people's lives. Proof the system and rehabilitation can work, really.

The figures for rehabilitation of sex offenders are very interesting, and not at all what the scare-mongering, ad-pimping liars we call journalists tell us.

Here to prove it is something written by a different bunch of ad-pimping journos: http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5418301

The Economist wrote:Advocates of keeping lists and restricting employment point out that the sexual abuse of children is a horrendous crime which can lead to a lifetime of anguish. But the main justification is not the awfulness of the offence but the supposedly incorrigible character of the offender. “The nature of sexual attraction to children is that it is often lifelong and compulsive,” explained Lady Scotland, a Home Office minister, in 2004. Such claims have been repeated so often that they have acquired the ring of truth. They are mostly false.

Men convicted of sex offences involving children are not, in fact, all that likely to commit further crimes. Of those released in 2002, 17% were in trouble again within two years. That may sound appalling, but compared with other ex-cons, sex offenders were paragons of virtue. The re-conviction rate for all criminals was 60% (see chart). Most incorrigible were men who stole from vehicles, 85% of whom had been re-convicted within the same period.

It is also likely that most of the child sex offenders who got into trouble after their release were collared for a different (and less appalling) crime. A study by America's Department of Justice found that, while 39% of child molesters were arrested again within three years of release, just 3% were suspected of another sex crime against a child.

I voted 'no', by the way.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-03-11 09:12am

mmar wrote:Ok, so its basicly statutory rape? Kinda strange for the official charge to be "USE OF A MINOR IN A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE". Seems there was a fuckup in the transfer of records between the states...

Children over 14 or 16 sometimes have a number of different rules regarding them so it doesn't always fall into the statutory rape category, it depends on the state. (Not a lawyer blah blah blah).

That said, I think it's interesting to note that with the two mistakes, there is only one yes vote, and even that might have been a mistake.

Spetulhu · Post by **Spetulhu** » 2006-03-11 10:19am

Xeriar wrote:That said, I think it's interesting to note that with the two mistakes, there is only one yes vote, and even that might have been a mistake.

Most reasonable people can't see how work as a firefighter makes you likely to become a repeat sex offender. But I did try to figure out how the complaining lady got that idea.

Uniforms. She's attracted to men in uniform. And since she finds it attractive impressionable young girls will also find it attractive. This lady thinks the man is going to use his uniform as a prop for seducing teen girls.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-03-11 12:16pm

Surlethe wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:My opinion depends on 2 things first what did he do (there is a difference) and what is the motivation of the person wanting to get him fired.
Out of curiosity, what bearing does the motivation of the person trying to get him fired have on the validity of the argument against him?

That was the first question on my mind, the second is for more information about what exactly did he do. Now that that came out, I'm much less charitable towards him.

Karza · Post by **Karza** » 2006-03-11 01:10pm

I voted no. He did his time, hasn't repeated the offense, and does a respectable job. I don't see any reason to fire him.

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2006-03-11 01:30pm

No for me as well. What grounds would they even have for firing him? Since the fire chief already knew, it's safe to say that his conviction did not bar him from such employment. And he hasn't done anything wrong since then, as far as we know. Looks to me like firing him would lead to one hell of a wrongful termination suit.

This Sherrard idiot needs to stop being such busy-body and get her own life to worry about.