I've stayed out of this until now....
Storm...You say that "I'm gonna say what I'm gonna say, and if you don't like it, too damn bad"....Fair enough, I respect that, people that have been here for awhile will tell you that I am quite capable of saying what's on my mind as well, SO, Without further ado, "You're kind of pissing me off", and i'll tell you why....
I've been around for a while, and the one thing I have noticed, especially in the last 40 years or so, is, 'Those who scream RACISM are generally the most RACIST'....
You want to jump on Wisconsin for being intolerant of your views, YET, you are intolerant of her reasons for putting her foot down on what is becoming offensive...Maybe you haven't been around here long enough, but a while back it got pretty ugly around here, some wishing death on those who didn't agree with them until Wisconsin strapped on her 'Hog Leg" and took charge...
Religion, Race and Politics can get ugly very fast..(I am guilty of the political arguments as well).

My thought, after discussing this with my husband, is that the laws themselves are colorblind. How they are applied may not be, as yes, certain victims are given way more legal and media attention than others. Even money doesn't have much effect---- I mean, if you have none, you have no chance of fighting the charges whereas if you have money you have a slim chance.

For example, when my husband arrived in CA, the detective in charge of the case showed up an hour or so after he was checked in "to ask him some questions and get his side of the story". He told her he'd be happy to as soon as his attorney got there, and he gave her the attorney's name and number. She NEVER returned. He was never interviewed, no one ever asked him a single question, no one ever investigated, no one asked for a polygraph, no one took any samples, nothing.

In their minds, it's all about the fear---- their fear of not getting re-elected, their fear of not getting any more of the federal funds given to states specifically for convicting SOs, their fear of public backlash. I honestly don't think they see race in this particular type of crimes.

Aladdin I agree, and I didn't really want to go to the, statistics are like the new, they can say anything the 'writer' wants it to. I agree that there haven't been many if any studies done on if there are more black men than white men in prison for sex offenses, if there are more of one color convicted of sex offenses, what their sentences are, both on average and the max and min that each color will receive. There are a myriad of other factors that would need to be considered as well, something I haven't done nor do I have time to track down right now. The fact is no one really knows, other than what is advertised on TV and by TV news folks who are working for ratings not for truth or facts.

I don't know what the ratio it was that my husband saw there, as there were several units that housed only SOs and he was in only one of them.

ksteeler is right, is is mainly about fear and money. Contributions, re-election (both for judges and politicians), and to misdirect focus elsewhere so we don't notice where everything else is unraveling.

Those that focus too much on one topic such as racism or just SOs will find that they are missing the big picture. The picture where you will see the patterns emerging of the middle class being robbed of their hard earned money only to see it given away to things that do nothing to better anyone or to help them become self-sufficient. What it teaches them is to be dependent on someone else. The Nazi's did something similar, as did the Romans and we did it here in the US during WW2, fill the media and lines of communication with propaganda about whichever group was becoming a perceived threat to those in power. Then get the public to ostracize them and push them to the fringes, then when that has been going on enough, round them up and ship them off to camps. In Germany they came up with "The Final Solution", in the US we eventually let them go, in Rome, well they died too...

When I was in prison, the ratio of black men convicted of rape and white men convicted of the same crime was close to 60/40, with a few more white men convicted of that crime than black men.

When a black guy had a sex crime conviction it always seemed to be rape, usually first-degree rape, and it usually was against an adult. I don't think I can remember a black guy ever being in prison for rape of an underage person.

I never once saw a black guy in there who was convicted of child molestation. There were a few with child abuse charges, but I never knew one there for molestatioin. Most all the child molestation charges were older white males, with a big majority in the 30 to 60 year old bracket.

Of course, there were no internet crimes at that time, so I have no way of judging the ratio of black vs white regarding solicitation charges or cp.

That was my experience anyway.

rewdiazepam

@ Wisconsin: When I read your comments they were open ended so as not to identify whom you were addressing and as such, I believed you were attacking not only my posting this thread, but also the fact that I do not agree with your opinion that sex laws are economically based instead of racially motivated. So, yes, I got pissed because your open-ended comments suggested that unless I agree with you, I cannot post here on the notion that it will offend others if we do not share your views. If that was going to be the case then I did not care to be apart of this community for I am one who will challenge the belief system, opinions, and claims of others so that all may learn, grow, and be better advocates. Now, all this said, you stepped up to the plate and pointed out that your comments were not directed at me - I take that as an apology for the open-ended way you wrote your comments and I in turn am sorry for getting pissed as I did.

When I am trying to make a point to the whole group that certain types of behavior will not be tolerated or should be tread lightly on, it has been my experience to not point fingers, name names, or single out anyone as it will immediately cause a defensive response rather than requiring someone to read and think about whatever is said.

It will keep people that realize that they were crossing a line to not feel as though they have to defend their past actions.

I will reiterate again that I do not care if your opinion does not agree with mine, I have to say that there is a great deal that I don't agree with in many threads, but opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Mine is no better or no more accurate or factual than any other. But I get accused often of being intolerant whenever I try to point out that some subject matter may not be the best to post on a board like this as things like race, politics, and religion have a tendency to bring out the worst in people when they are defending their point of view. If I were truly an intolerant, bitchy, censoring wench then I would probably be deleting every single post that I just 'didn't like'. I do not do that, I do not push my opinion on anyone here to the best of my knowledge. All I try to do is keep order and keep the peace on a board that is about one of most volatile subjects other than, race, politics and religion.

So be mad, get angry, and if necessary leave, but to try to say that I am a dictator that will boot and delete all that do not agree with me is a out and out lie that I take great offense to and will not tolerate.

Now, insofar as this thread . . .

Sex laws present unique aspects from other laws because while they were clearly enacted to target males and those with disabilities, it appears they were also enacted based on racially motivated reasons, i.e. to protect white children. Again, if the premise were true that legislators want to protect children then they would also enact registry and civil commitment laws to address children who fall victim to gangs, gang violence, and drug use. However, the fact that no such laws exist and the fact that the "poster child" for sex laws are those who are white children, then a reasonable inference can be drawn that sex laws were enacted to protect white children from males and those with disabilities.

Of course, like all criminal laws, they are most commonly applied to those of the lower economical and politically-absent class of people. This is to say, people like Anthony Weiner are not going to face the wrath of sex laws due to his political clout and economical status, where as a low income male whom is not known in political circles is going to be tarted on the "Chester The Molester" hypothesis because it is politically profitable apply sex laws against this class of people.

Let me clarify something here. I believe sex laws themselves are racially motivated, but not necessarily how they are applied - again there is a difference in [why] a law is enacted and [how] the law is applied. I do not necessarily believe sex laws are applied due to racial issues, but I do believe they were enacted with racial motivation, i.e. its' okay to rape a child of color but not a white child.

Insofar as the notion claimed earlier in this thread that only those who are racist play the "black card" such is without merit and, frankly, insulting considering I am white and therefore cannot claim standing under the "black card" here. Nevertheless, while racial issues are a heated subject, they become such when people choose to stop acting like adults and internalize things so we react on emotions rather than logic.

Wisconsin: You wrote - "[B]ut I get accused often of being intolerant . . . " perhaps there is a reason why people say this. Rather than simply, quickly, and easily dismissing this, maybe you might want to think about it in an objective way.

Again, you wrote your comments in an open-ended way to give reason to believe that you were attacking me and using your clout here to say that unless I agree with your viewpoint then you will delete this thread and yes, that pissed me off and rightfully so. If you are going to write something in an open-ended way then you leave others to draw their own conclusions in whom you are speaking to and what you are saying to them. And maybe this is why people think you are intolerant.

The reason people may find me intolerant is that I have posted rules and I expect them to be followed... I try to cut off a thread from getting out of hand and am told I am being intolerant.

The only intolerance I see here is the lack of tolerance of being told that someone is pushing the envelope with the rules and that unless they are allowed to just run amok I am the intolerant one.

Would everyone like to have Oneofthem back to push the buttons of everyone on here, preach violence and intolerance of anyone that doesn't agree with their more pushy way of doing things? Would everyone like me to just stop watching again and let people stomp on others like they were while I was absent? If so, let me know. I will drift away and let the trolls take back over, I have no problem with that what-so-ever. This is where I will become intolerant as peace on this board comes with a price, everyone must be civil, certain subjects might ignite flaming and vicious discussions will not be tolerated. I fear that I have let this one go to far as well, but want to have on the record here that I again will not tolerate these kinds of behaviors here.

Perhaps you should take your own advise Legal and 'think about it in an objective way.'

Fine wisconsinrsol - you win. You are right and everyone else is wrong. You clearly want to ignore my point so its fruitless to discuss such.

I am not here to placate you, I am here to keep the peace. If you are unable to play nice with others and continue to insult and throw digs at me it will end in your banishment. I have said more than once on this thread my position, if you do not like it, that is your opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Take it or leave it, it is entirely your prerogative.

This is not about win or lose, this is about being civil and agreeing that you are not going to agree with everyone. If you do not like that, you will have to decide what to do then.

Thank legal for putting up a thread that people want to commit on. It keeps this sometime boring site interesting. I also agree with rewdiazepam on there being more white men in jail for sex offence of children but that also goes back to what leagle said about them protecting the white kids. white men rape white kids. So thats why it would be more white men in jail for it. I would think there was just as much rape of kids with black men.but black kids are not protected and fall by the waist side in society due to low income and education.

I like the theads with a little spice. Something interesting not just a shout out. Those are nice welcomes but not alot about whats going on on this list. and the problems and hopefully the answers on how to get off the damn list .This threads that legal wrote and some others just keeps me comming back to the site as I search the intrenet for a way off. and to always give my part in changing laws

I'm standing next to Wisconsin on this one.. so legal... add me to your list.
I thought you were leaving?

@ Wisconsin: The subject matter of this thread is legitimate. I do not agree with your opinion that sex laws are enacted to target low income. You apparently have an issue with the fact I do not agree with you - big deal and the only one lacking civility here is you. Now, if you don't mind, please stop hijacking my thread so you can have your personal war with me. Take it to private messages if you don't mind.

This is not about who agrees with who.

You are trying to start a fight with me and that will not be tolerated here.

Cease and desist, I will keep the peace one way or another. If you want to pick fights go elsewhere. I am done with this conversation with you as you obviously do not like it when someone disagrees with you.