Posts by Xandria

28

A letter from a daycare teacher ...

by sacolton in

jw
friends

this is from a friend i know who posted this on her blog .... dear uber-religious jehovah's witness mother,.

what the hell is it gonna hurt for your daughter to join in on wishing a classmate a happy birthday?

is she gonna burn in hell for eating a pink-frosted cupcake and smiling a little?

Xandria

I understand everyone's view point however, appeal to the parent, rather than make the child the subject of a power struggle. Ask the parent, to have something special for the child that would be inclusive and special for the child. Rather than attack the parent, and justifiying her position of persecution, on the behalf of her "lord."

I have had it both ways where I felt left out and bereft as a child. And persecuted for the religion I was conflicted about, but had to "stand" for because it was the root religion of my parents. I had teachers on both spectrums, where some were kind and sympathetic, to those who took it an whole other level of torture and humiliation, just to prove their point. The child is in the middle, and it isn't their fault. However making them the subject, simply subjects them to more pain, more confusion and more scrutiny. Drawing more attention to the situation tends to single out, the child (which at times makes them the Target of other children because they are different) and gives them the opening Jw's need to feel justification in their "stance".

X.

28

A letter from a daycare teacher ...

by sacolton in

jw
friends

this is from a friend i know who posted this on her blog .... dear uber-religious jehovah's witness mother,.

what the hell is it gonna hurt for your daughter to join in on wishing a classmate a happy birthday?

is she gonna burn in hell for eating a pink-frosted cupcake and smiling a little?

Xandria

While it is heart breaking, that teacher put herself in a very actionable position, and can be punished by the day care director, or district director for this type of letter. It places them in a discrimination position, due to religious beliefs. While the teacher's heart is breaking for the child, the way she put it, will be looked upon as unprofessional. Had she put it in a way that explained the mental harm and that she was concerned, then it would be acceptable. Cursing at a parent, and attacking them, in the first opening sentences, is a sure way to end up in the wrong position and defending yourself and your position. She took a great risk in writing this...

I am sure the mother of this child will place herself as being a victim of religious discrimination, etc. etc.

X.

42

Keep In Contact - Email Addresses

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

hello,.

rather than each person starting a thread and cluttering the board, perhaps we can keep this thread for posters email addresses that we may want to stay in contact with.. mine is: [email protected].

cheers - hs.

Xandria

[email protected]

16

Good News Y'all

by Xandria in

as of july 28, 2008 north carolina now has jessica's law!

we were able to be there with mark lunsford to witness the signing of the bill into law.

so now if a offender does anything there is a bite to the law.

Xandria

As per children rights, no one is arguing that it is ok for children to be molested. Of course they have rights. That argument is a moot point. What I am saying is that IMO monitoring criminals is not cost effective nor do I feel the government has any right to do it. As I pointed out before it isn't really working well in Florida.

Burger Time,

I think you are missing my point, if you have someone who will not govern themselves and are inflicting themselves on someone else at the expense of the victim's well being, then they should lose out. The arguement is not a moot point. Whose rights win out? Theirs or the childs? Government has the right to do this at the request (majority rule) of those who are known as we the people. We ask for protection from criminals, what these people do action wise is criminal. They do not have a recovery, they are constantly ill and what are you to do?

Depending on the severity of the crime, the make up of the offfender, then we have a right to protect our children and family from those who would inflict harm.

Re: Florida, there are other places they can live. They choose to live in child frequented areas. Again there are dorms, there are areas, they just don't want to live there. If they are a productive, and non threat to society that is one thing, but they aren't.

X.

42

Remembering Danny

by purplesofa in

jw
friends

i did not realize i had a topic left.. two years ago my brother committed suicide.. people from this board were very helpful and supportive.. suicide of a loved on is a difficult death to deal with.. my heart goes out to all who have lost a loved one to suicide.

purps.

i had this song played at his funeral ......sharing it with you all.. .

Xandria

It is never easy and you can play what if's until the sun swallows the earth. Just don't blame yourself, beating yourself up for something you cannot control. I lost 2 people myself and no matter what I did, it wasn't enough. I had to realize that this was a darkness that ate at them and they had the power, even though they felt powerless. Some can get past that darkness and others just cannot. All any of us can do, is take this day by day, one day at a time, and be there as best as we can.

X.

16

Good News Y'all

by Xandria in

as of july 28, 2008 north carolina now has jessica's law!

we were able to be there with mark lunsford to witness the signing of the bill into law.

so now if a offender does anything there is a bite to the law.

Xandria

Burger Time,

You are speaking to someone who is very close to the Lunsfords. Monitoring isn't fool proof, howeverit does cut down the percentages.

All this talk about offender's rights, you fail to think about the rights of a child. Which is to live their lives UNMOLESTED and ALIVE. We are speaking of violent offenders, who have had a track record here. There are dorms, there are residential group homes, for offenders who have "served their time". There is a very very slim percentage that attend rehabilitation programs and a good number do re-offend. Jessica's Law specifically deals with 13 and under, as well as a 3000 feet rule to places that children frequent.

Most Pedophiles do not take responsiblity for their actions, and thus we as a society have to take the position to protect our children. If it is at the cost of their privacy, too f-ing bad! What is the price of a child's life worth? What about their constitutional rights? Do we discount them?

Have you read the law Burger? For anon violent, offender they can, after ten years request to be stricken from the registry, and depending on what the circumstances of their case is, the court will decide on that matter.

About Pedophiles:

Pedophiles seem to have narcissistic and antisocial (psychopathic) traits. They lack empathy for their victims and express no remorse for their actions. They are in denial and, being pathological confabulators, they rationalize their transgressions, claiming that the children were merely being educated for their own good and, anyhow, derived great pleasure from it.

The pedophile's ego-syntony rests on his alloplastic defenses. He generally tends to blame others (or the world or the "system") for his misfortunes, failures, and deficiencies. Pedophiles frequently accuse their victims of acting promiscuously, of "coming on to them", of actively tempting, provoking, and luring (or even trapping) them.

So you can understand why people would not want them around children. This behavior is compulsive and why feed into temptation?

The pedophile treats "his" chosen child as an object, an extension of himself, devoid of a separate existence and denuded of distinct needs. He finds the child's submissiveness and gullibility gratifying. He frowns on any sign of personal autonomy and regards it as a threat. By intimidating, cajoling, charming, and making false promises, the abuser isolates his prey from his family, school, peers, and from the rest of society and, thus, makes the child's dependence on him total.

16

Good News Y'all

by Xandria in

as of july 28, 2008 north carolina now has jessica's law!

we were able to be there with mark lunsford to witness the signing of the bill into law.

so now if a offender does anything there is a bite to the law.

Xandria

Burger Time,

I can respect how you feel, however, had Couey had consistant monitoring, Jessie would be alive today. Three weeks after they removed the monitoring device, he moved from where he was, kidnapped and repeatedly raped Jessica (she was alive for three days) and then he buried Jessica Lunsford alive, thus ending her life. So, I am not sympathetic to his "rights" he lost those rights, when he committed those first acts that landed him in trouble to begin with, he was a risk then. They should not get a second chance!

When a violent offender does this act, they should lose their rights to any type of privacy. Privacy= Opportunity .

X.

16

Good News Y'all

by Xandria in

as of july 28, 2008 north carolina now has jessica's law!

we were able to be there with mark lunsford to witness the signing of the bill into law.

so now if a offender does anything there is a bite to the law.

Xandria

Why would states fight against this law? Does it interfere with their sovereignty somehow?

In certain states, there are laws already in place and people are "comfortable" with having an offender just serve 2 yrs on a rape charge. States do not want to be dictated to, in regards to laws, and some in the House of Rep. (in States like Vermont, Idaho, etc.) Feel that they are being dictated to, in regards to thier state's laws. So they oppose or drag their feet until they absolutely have to do something.

Then there are the states who just pop a Jessica's Law just to have a Jessica's Law and they did not take the time to look into the consititutional rights of the offender. Yes, they have rights even after they do the things they have done. An example of this is in California, as soon as Jessica's Law was passed there, they had a lawsuit over the rights of the Offender. See article below:

Parole officers started arresting hundreds of sex offenders for living too close to a school or park , despite the state Supreme Court saying that Jessica's Law may violate sex offenders rights and efforts by lawyers defending four sex offenders to block enforcement until a ruling is made, KTLA reported Friday.

T he justices may rule on its constitutionality, after government send their objects and the parolees' attorneys respond by the end of the month. Parole officers started arresting hundreds of sex offenders for living too close to a school or park , despite the state Supreme Court saying that Jessica's Law may violate sex offenders rights and efforts by lawyers defending four sex offenders to block enforcement until a ruling is made, KTLA reported Friday.

CA Supreme Court may rule on constitutionality of Jessica's Law

The state Supreme Court on said that revoking the parole of four recently released sex offenders who are illegally living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks according to Jessica's Law may violate their constitutional rights, the Associated Press reported.

The parolees' attorneys are trying to make the temporary injunction to apply to the 1,800 sex offender parolees told to move or risk imprisonment. They argue that Jessica's law is unconstitutionally vague and imposes unreasonable conditions on parole.

The law causes parolees to become homeless and doesn't stop them from going to schools or parks, just from sleeping there, said Don Spector who directs the non-profit Prison Law Office and is one of the parolee's attorneys in the case.

The state has until Oct. 24 to file it' s objections and the parolees' attorney until the following week to respond. After that, the justices could rule on whether Jessica's Law is constitutional.

The Governor's office said they plan on continuing revoking parole from violators unless another court order is given.

By Don Thompson ASSOCIATED PRESS

7:06 p.m. October 10, 2007

SACRAMENTO – The state Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from revoking the parole of four recently released sex offenders who are illegally living too close to schools and parks.

In a one-paragraph order, the court said it will consider whether Jessica's Law violates the parolees' constitutional rights. The law approved by voters last November prohibits offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather. The parolees' attorneys said the temporary injunction should apply to all the nearly 1,800 recent parolees who had been told they must move or risk being sent back to prison starting Thursday.

The state still plans to immediately start revoking parole for violators unless it is blocked by another court order, said Bill Maile, a spokesman for the department and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“We intend to move forward on implementation with all other offenders subject to the law,” said Maile.

Don Specter, director of the nonprofit Prison Law Office, said he would seek new injunctions for each of the 1,800 parolees, if necessary.

Attorneys for the four parolees argue that the law punishes sex offenders after they have already paid for their crime by serving prison time. They allege the law is unconstitutionally vague and imposes unreasonable conditions on parole.

It could also force offenders underground because they can't find housing that fits the strict rules under the law, said Specter, one of the attorneys who won the injunction Wednesday.

“It will cause more problems than it will solve,” Specter said. “It makes them homeless in many counties. It's irrational in that it doesn't prevent them from going near these places (schools and parks) – they just can't sleep there.”

Two law firms sued on behalf of four sex offenders whose crimes did not involve children. The offenders are identified in court documents only by their initials, but one is from San Francisco, one is from San Mateo County, and two are from San Diego County.

All four are subject to Jessica's Law not because of their most recent offenses, but because of prior crimes dating as far back as 1985. Two committed forcible rapes, but one was convicted of having consensual sexual contact with a 15-year-old girl at a party when he was 16.

The Supreme Court ordered the state to file its objections by Oct. 24, and gave the parolees' attorneys until Oct. 31 to respond. The justices could then issue a ruling on whether Jessica's Law is constitutional.

That is why I am glad that NC did look into the constitutionality of it's mandates and covered issues that pops up when it comes to offenders rights.

X.

6

I will be traveling cross country...

by Xandria in

jw
friends

my husband and i will be stopping in tn in either the end of this week or the beginning.

from there we will be traveling across country through ok, tx, to az.

so if anyone wants to meet us who lives in these areas, let me know through email.

Xandria

Thank you!

I will post occassionally from the road.

X.

16

Good News Y'all

by Xandria in

as of july 28, 2008 north carolina now has jessica's law!

we were able to be there with mark lunsford to witness the signing of the bill into law.

so now if a offender does anything there is a bite to the law.

Xandria

Thank you SKally, you are absolutely right. Many people do not look into the family or friends circle. You have to be aware and not enable, some families like Couey's are enablers of this. Couey's family covered for him.

There is a lot to this, since my husband Mark has been working with Mark Lunsford in a coordinated effort to get this law passed. There are people who do not like this law. It has to be consititional for it to work and there are many states and groups that are fighting against this law.

X.