PADI Underwater Child Molester Specialty Course?

Chris Guynn wrote:


>
> Precisely my point. Thanks for saying it better than I did.
>
>
>>Probably the biggest deterrent is the knowledge the WILL be caught and
>>when they are, they WILL be dealt with harshly. Criminals that commit
>>crimes against kids have a VERY tough time in prison.
>
>
> Too bad the deterrent doesn't work better. Of course that could be said
> until the crimes were completely wiped out...

I am no psychologist but have gone through quite a bit of training and
education in this topic. My best guess, is the hardcore that keep doing
it do not consider the possibility of getting caught. Most likely, the
possibility of getting caught is a deterrent for the vast majority of
pedophiles....its the small percentage that think they are too smart, or
have been doing it so long they feel they have beat the system.

>
>
>>Good question. My personal opinion...HELL NO!!! Unless it can be
>>proved the victims lied and made the entire episodes up....but I think
>>in this case, it was multiple victims on multiple occassions. That is
>>much harder to fabricate than a "one victim, one incident" scenario.
>
>
> I have mixed feelings about this. A verdict of Not Guilty really only means
> that the prosecution couldn't prove their case. It doesn't mean he didn't
> do it; although, for most intents and purposes, a verdict of not guilty is
> viewed (by many) the same as innocent. I'm not sure what the legal
> ramifications are, but I would guess that if he is found not guilty it would
> be hard to justify not re-hiring him simply because he had been accused. On
> the other hand, I wouldn't want my kid going to school there and I
> especially wouldn't want my kid to be in his class.

I agree with you. In that situation, the school system would be caught
between the technicalities of the law and the moral obligation for what
is best for the students. They would be in an almost no win situation.
If the employee were found not guilty because of some technicality and
pushed the issue to be returned to employment, he could sue the school
system if they didn't claiming wrongful termination. However, if they
took him back, and he accosted some kids (again), the kids family could
sue for negligent retention.

As I said earlier, unless it is proven conclusively, the kids totally
lied and fabricated the story, then the person should not be returned to
employment....but then that is just my opinion.


>
>

--
More people died at Chappaquiddick than have been killed by my guns.

Nitespark left this mess on Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:01:07 -0400 for The Way to clean
up:
>
>>I don't agree that anyone deserves to die for a crime. In this case, I think his
>>real punishment would have been to live the rest of his life in jail under that
>> dark cloud.
>
>He DID live the rest of his life in jail under that dark cloud.
>
>While I agree with you, confinement for the rest of his natural life
>would have been appropriate punishment for molesting kids, I shed no
>tears at his demise.

Nor will I, for very personal reasons.

>My comment was NOT meant as much as an opinion on how appropriate the
>punishment, as much as we can now absolutely guarantee that HE will
>never commit that crime, or any crime again.
>
>I have dealt with situations where the death penalty was quite appropriate.
>

Agreed. While it's not appropriate to turn this into a thread about the death
penalty, I just couldn't come up with a better way of expressing my thoughts,
which are conflicted on this issue of his death.

>> In other words, I think he got off too easy. Jesus will forgive him. Man does
>> not have to.
>
>Jesus will forgive him and died for his sins. God will sit in judgement.

Tao te Carl

"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

"de Valois" <devalois@nailedandused.com> wrote in message
news:bkq1os01pjc@drn.newsguy.com...
> Nitespark left this mess on Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:01:07 -0400 for The Way to
clean
> up:
> >
> >>I don't agree that anyone deserves to die for a crime. In this case, I
think his
> >>real punishment would have been to live the rest of his life in jail
under that
> >> dark cloud.
> >
> >He DID live the rest of his life in jail under that dark cloud.
> >
> >While I agree with you, confinement for the rest of his natural life
> >would have been appropriate punishment for molesting kids, I shed no
> >tears at his demise.
>
> Nor will I, for very personal reasons.
>
> >My comment was NOT meant as much as an opinion on how appropriate the
> >punishment, as much as we can now absolutely guarantee that HE will
> >never commit that crime, or any crime again.
> >
> >I have dealt with situations where the death penalty was quite
appropriate.
> >
>
> Agreed. While it's not appropriate to turn this into a thread about the
death
> penalty, I just couldn't come up with a better way of expressing my
thoughts,
> which are conflicted on this issue of his death.

This is rec.scuba... pretty much anything is appropriate except spam.

C Guynn

Chris Guynn wrote:

>>I agree with you. In that situation, the school system would be caught
>>between the technicalities of the law and the moral obligation for what
>>is best for the students. They would be in an almost no win situation.
>> If the employee were found not guilty because of some technicality and
>>pushed the issue to be returned to employment, he could sue the school
>>system if they didn't claiming wrongful termination. However, if they
>>took him back, and he accosted some kids (again), the kids family could
>>sue for negligent retention.
>
>
> I bet the wrongful termination suit would cost less than the negligent
> retention... I'd leave the guy canned. Not becaue of the expected payout in
> case of suits, but because of the more obvious reasons. I'd rather this guy
> not work for me than have a kid get molested. Although, I wouldn't let the
> case affect my decision if I weren't involved in a child-intensive industry.

I am with you on this. The welfare of the kids comes first. The only
other alternative would be for them to "make a job" for him in some
capacity where he doesn't have any contact with kids....night janitor
working 2300-0700 or something like that. He could grieve a
termination, but he cannot grieve his assigned duties or work hours.




--
More people died at Chappaquiddick than have been killed by my guns.

Grumman-581 wrote:

> "Nitespark" wrote ...
>
>>Criminals that commit crimes against kids
>>have a VERY tough time in prison.
>
>
> As that Catholic priest so recently found out... Even in a protective
> lockup, one guy managed to kill him by beating him to death... <evil-grin>


He wasn't beaten to death, he slipped on a bar of soap - six times.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

> > As that Catholic priest so recently found out... Even in a protective
> > lockup, one guy managed to kill him by beating him to death...
<evil-grin>

Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord. Nobody promised that it would not be
delivered by Buba.

Lee

If he is a Masters of Business teaching Accounting and Head of Department,
he could grieve his assigned duties.

Promote him to twice the duties, on the same paycheck, in an office with the
door where the receptionist can see he doesn't leave it, and feed him
nothing but paperwork, and never give him a rise.


"Nitespark" <nitespark@h8spam.cox.net> wrote in message
news:rP3cb.3011$k74.2780@lakeread05...
>
>
> Chris Guynn wrote:
>
> >>I agree with you. In that situation, the school system would be caught
> >>between the technicalities of the law and the moral obligation for what
> >>is best for the students. They would be in an almost no win situation.
> >> If the employee were found not guilty because of some technicality and
> >>pushed the issue to be returned to employment, he could sue the school
> >>system if they didn't claiming wrongful termination. However, if they
> >>took him back, and he accosted some kids (again), the kids family could
> >>sue for negligent retention.
> >
> >
> > I bet the wrongful termination suit would cost less than the negligent
> > retention... I'd leave the guy canned. Not becaue of the expected
payout in
> > case of suits, but because of the more obvious reasons. I'd rather this
guy
> > not work for me than have a kid get molested. Although, I wouldn't let
the
> > case affect my decision if I weren't involved in a child-intensive
industry.
>
> I am with you on this. The welfare of the kids comes first. The only
> other alternative would be for them to "make a job" for him in some
> capacity where he doesn't have any contact with kids....night janitor
> working 2300-0700 or something like that. He could grieve a
> termination, but he cannot grieve his assigned duties or work hours.
>
>
>
>
> --
> More people died at Chappaquiddick than have been killed by my guns.
>

I though you were a lawyer.

I guess you lost your faith un di juicestiuice suiystem.



On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:22:08 -0700, "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com>
wrote:

>"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:1d7ab.30269$NM1.565@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
>> Son of a bitch. It's not like the BSA hasn't had enough bad to say about
>> gays in the organization without adding this to the mix. I certainly how
>> that this is all wrong, that the accusations were a joke or in retaliation
>> for some earlier slight. Somehow, however, I suspect is isn't.
>
>Interesting that he fondled all four. You'd think after the first one or
>two, the others would have reacted. After all, they were 14 and 15 years
>old and there were four of them. If someone did that to me and my friends
>when I was that age, the guy wouldn't have been arrested, we'd have dealt
>with him ourselves.
>
>

<Joe> wrote in message news:grpok0tdqhnkhbbsscm1kt1uph1ukp4nr3@4ax.com...

> >Interesting that he fondled all four. You'd think after the first one or
> >two, the others would have reacted. After all, they were 14 and 15 years
> >old and there were four of them. If someone did that to me and my
friends
> >when I was that age, the guy wouldn't have been arrested, we'd have dealt
> >with him ourselves.

And been out of jail by 18, with the comfort of knowing that you rid the
earth of his shadow.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:14:55 -0700, "Scott"
<pugetsounddiver@geemail.com> wrote:

>
><Joe> wrote in message news:grpok0tdqhnkhbbsscm1kt1uph1ukp4nr3@4ax.com...
>
>> >Interesting that he fondled all four. You'd think after the first one or
>> >two, the others would have reacted. After all, they were 14 and 15 years
>> >old and there were four of them. If someone did that to me and my
>friends
>> >when I was that age, the guy wouldn't have been arrested, we'd have dealt
>> >with him ourselves.
>
>And been out of jail by 18, with the comfort of knowing that you rid the
>earth of his shadow.
>

He fell down a flight of stairs.

We were just fooling around and I accidentally hit him with the
baseball bat.

He said the gun was unloaded and was going to prove it.

He said to throw him the knife and I'm too young to know not to take
it literally.

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.