What's everyone's opinion on convicted and registered sex offenders being TI's?

[promise5 17]

Alright then define child abusers.
What about the case I stated. Where the molester was able to get a plea down to corrupting the morals of a child. Some might not see that as abuse or accept whatever lie the perpetrator came up with.

I'll say since helping with this I've heard enough sick stories to last a life time. I've also taken enough crap for wanting this. (Not from anyone on this thread.)

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[billvon 3,118]

>Where the molester was able to get a plea down to corrupting the morals of a
>child. Some might not see that as abuse or except whatever lie the perpetrator
>came up with.

Then you shouldn't hire him. It would be better to find out what he actually DID and not whether he's on a given list.

[normiss 897]

It's my understanding that there are certain guilty convictions needed to be placed on the list.
Pleading down to one that isn't is generally part of the game.
Proving guilt and actual guilt are worlds apart.
You can't make people pay for crimes they aren't convicted of.
Well, we shouldn't be able to IMO.
Yet we do.

[promise5 17]

Sometimes it's not a matter of being able to prove something. It's a matter of not wanting to put that child through the trauma of a trial.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[kelpdiver 2]

promise5

Sometimes it's not a matter of being able to prove something. It's a matter of not wanting to put that child through the trauma of a trial.

citizens' right to a fair trial, and to cross examine witnesses, trumps such interests. If the DA accepts a plea to a lesser crime, that's the one you can work with. The actual conviction.

[promise5 17]

Yes and that's why I go with, if they're on the national registry or not.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[billvon 3,118]

>Yes and that's why I go with, if they're on the national registry or not.

I prefer to go with - are they rapists or child molesters or not? To me that seems more relevant.

It's like not hiring someone because they are on a TSA watch list. If they're on the watch list, why take a chance that they are a terrorist? A wiser employer might not blindly trust the TSA and instead hire them based on their interview, recommendations, character references etc.

[rifleman 70]

Apparently, this is real. Bradford County, Florida are now sticking big red signs outside the homes of sexual predators.

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[normiss 897]

There are also very restrictive laws and ordinances in FL on where they can live.

[promise5 17]

Not sure I agree with this.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[SivaGanesha 2]

billvon

Better step is not allowing convicted rapists or child abusers to be certified, and allowing people who streaked or urinated in public to be certified. That better accomplishes the goal.

I would still--as I think you proposed earlier in this thread--leave it up the DZO. And the DZO doesn't decide who gets certified--only who gets hired or can do tandems on their own DZ.

The reason is that I think the general issue of what we should do about sex offenders is something that has to be resolved at a societal level--and there are many people in society at large who are thinking about these issues--including but not limited to politicians who I'm paying (through my taxes) to deal with these issues. I'm not saying that society has got it right but I AM saying that the general problem needs to be solved by society as a whole, not by USPA.

When it comes to USPA, I'm a member. And I want my $55/year (or whatever it is) to go SOLELY to focusing on skydiving issues--not these sex offender matters. No matter how valid a concern the sex offender matters are at a societal level, I'm simply not paying the USPA to focus on these matters. I'm paying the USPA to focus on skydiving--period. I do realize that USPA recently introduced a BSR related to under-18 jumpers. But I feel that the USPA overstepped in that matter and I feel that if they wade into the sex offender issue they'll be overstepping again.

But an individual DZO is running a business and it isn't up to me to tell them how to run that business. If they choose to do background checks on their employees/contractors--which may include checking the sex offender lists but may also include other criminal background checks--that is their prerogative and simply none of my concern as I'm not a DZO. That's why I think it should be up to the DZO.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[billvon 3,118]

>I would still--as I think you proposed earlier in this thread--leave it up the DZO.
>And the DZO doesn't decide who gets certified--only who gets hired or can do
>tandems on their own DZ.

Agreed - that would be an even better approach.

[promise5 17]

Well like so many others we disagree. I think it is a safety issue and an issue for the skydiving community as a whole. I don't see letting them represent this sport.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[Rick 67]

promise5

Well like so many others we disagree. I think it is a safety issue and an issue for the skydiving community as a whole. I don't see letting them represent this sport.

are there any other types of crimes that you believe should disqualify someone from getting a rating?? Maybe drug smuggling??

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[normiss 897]

Don't go soiling the history of this sport mister.

[promise5 17]

And kill the sport?????!!!!!

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[stayhigh 2]

I think the law and the aftermath are very harsh, so that people are very deterred to commit such a crime.

It is what it is, all these rapist should've went on xhamster.com and just beat it all day long.

But everyone's brain is wired differently right??
Would all of these felons have committed a crime if the punishment was death sentence???

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[normiss 897]

Murder still happens, so, I'm gonna say yes.

[quade 4]

normiss

Murder still happens, so, I'm gonna say yes.

I think for the most part murder isn't conducted serially. It's usually a crime of the moment against a very specific target; isn't it?

Compare that to the people we're concerned about the most in this thread. Hell, the basic assumption is it's nearly impossible for them to control their urges and will commit the crime given any opportunity.

I'm not sure comparing the two is meaningful when it comes to deterrents and recidivism.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SivaGanesha 2]

normiss

Murder still happens, so, I'm gonna say yes.

In certain respects, society seems inclined to be harsher to rapists/sex offenders even than to murderers.

For example, when murderers (involved in a non-sex crime murder) do happen to get out on parole after many years, society doesn't seem to subject them to a lifetime of shame in quite the same way that we do for rapists.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[SivaGanesha 2]

promise5

Well like so many others we disagree. I think it is a safety issue and an issue for the skydiving community as a whole. I don't see letting them represent this sport.

One reason why I'm cautious about agreeing with you is that I'm unsure of what direction you are heading in. When you opened this thread, your first post seemed extremely reasonable: how do we keep the violent rapists/molesters out of these roles (something most would agree with) without punishing the basically innocent folks like the 18 year old sleeping consensually with a 16 year old girlfriend.

However, you seem to be evolving into a more intolerant, less reasonable, stance--more recently saying that you absolutely do want to bar the 18 year old kid and also using what I'm sure you realize is very loaded language: referring to an 18 year old sleeping with a 16 year old as "something involving a child". In my opinion it definitely is not.

You started out being reasonable but you've moved away from that position--so you are going in an unhealthy direction IMHO. That is part of the reason I find it hard to agree with you. If you'd continued on the tack you started on I would be extremely supportive.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[promise5 17]

SivaGanesha

***Well like so many others we disagree. I think it is a safety issue and an issue for the skydiving community as a whole. I don't see letting them represent this sport.

One reason why I'm cautious about agreeing with you is that I'm unsure of what direction you are heading in. When you opened this thread, your first post seemed extremely reasonable: how do we keep the violent rapists/molesters out of these roles (something most would agree with) without punishing the basically innocent folks like the 18 year old sleeping consensually with a 16 year old girlfriend.

However, you seem to be evolving into a more intolerant, less reasonable, stance--more recently saying that you absolutely do want to bar the 18 year old kid and also using what I'm sure you realize is very loaded language: referring to an 18 year old sleeping with a 16 year old as "something involving a child". In my opinion it definitely is not.

You started out being reasonable but you've moved away from that position--so you are going in an unhealthy direction IMHO. That is part of the reason I find it hard to agree with you. If you'd continued on the tack you started on I would be extremely supportive.

You misunderstood me then. I don't see the 16 yr old as a child and that's not what I meant at all when I said involving a child. I hold the same opinion I held at the beginning. As it stands if the 18 yr old had to be on the national registry as a sex offender then no that person wouldn't be able to be a TI. It's not fair I know but in order to get this done under the current registry system that's the way it would have to be. I see the need to work towards changing who gets put on the sex offenders registry and for what. But again it's hard because of plea bargains etc. that are made. I'm very intolerant of someone molesting a child or raping someone and then after " paying their due" to society going on with their lives with no consequences. For them I see not becoming a TI one of the consequences they should have. I'll say it again let them enjoy the sport all they want just not in this way.

The thing I don't think people are aware of is,that it's not just those that don't want to see the 18 yr old kid that slept with his girlfriend or the guy that streaked or peed in public that doesn't want this. It's the rapist and the child molester that don't want to lose a rating/certification.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[SivaGanesha 2]

promise5

As it stands if the 18 yr old had to be on the national registry as a sex offender then no that person wouldn't be able to be a TI. It's not fair I know but in order to get this done under the current registry system that's the way it would have to be.

The thing is that you make it sound like under the "current system" there are no alternatives besides issuing a blanket denial to everyone on the sex offender list. Although I agree with you that nothing is ever perfect, we can definitely do better than that already.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[promise5 17]

1) rapist
2) anything involving a child.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[Arvoitus 1]

How about murderers? Can they work as TI's?

Your rights end where my feelings begin.