Talk:Sexual predator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Delete?

It'd be more useful to say that this is a perjorative term for a serial rapist... define it a bit more... one that is often used in tabloid newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.243.169 (talk • contribs)

The designation has been used largely to politicize the issue, as a pretext for various forms of Megan's law which in some cases, like in Kansas, had even been used to criminalize sodomy and bring the people convicted of this into registries (before the Supreme Court struck down statutes against sodomy). In one case, even a married couple has been targeted, because one spouse was under age, according to the standard of the state (either Kansas or Nebraska).

The inherent slippery slope nature of the term which allows its extension to wider and wider reaches (for who would dare oppose its usage and application?) and the analogy to the situation in the 1930's in Nazi Germany with the emergence of registries, initially against behaviors considered deviant, but gradually extended to wider and wider scopes, should be noted. For these kinds of designations are always nothing less than the insidious pretext by which fascism creeps into through the false guise of protecting against "deviants".

It's used as a perjorative for a serial rapist, as you noted. But as time has progressed, as the article noted, its usage has been extended to wider and wider reaches, bearing out the slippery slope nature of the demonization behind the prejudicial language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.235.145.127 (talk • contribs)

I think the reasons given above are reasons a "sexual predator" article should exist. If a definition can be formulated, it can be used to draw distinctions between actual predatory behavior, such as tracking down children online so you can molest them, and acts between consenting adults in the (constitutionally protected) privacy of their homes. If you've found research indicating that "sexual predators" is a term that was created solely for political purposes, please include it in the article. Otherwise, your opinions stated above, no matter how well put, are original research and not NPOV.

Also, if for my sake only, please lay off the Nazi comparisons. I can't stand how any time anyone doesn't like something, they compare it to Nazism. I feel doing so demeans the gravity of the Holocaust. Furthermore, I think it’s pathetically weak rhetoric. It’s a crutch people lean on to vilify just about any idea they don’t like, which, ironically, in itself could be compared to Nazism. One could compare people who don't smoke, drink alcohol, cheat on their spouses, or eat meat to Adolf Hitler. One could equate labor unions, FDR’s New Deal, and even Amtrak with Nazism. Calling Megan’s Law or whatever else offends you unfair, unconstitutional, creepy, or stupid is great. (It’d be great if you could back it up with facts, but I don’t mind if you just say something’s dumb and then call it a day). But until someone starts shoving people into internment camps or gassing people by the dozens, likening ideas you don’t like to Nazism is just lazy. -Jim Campbell 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Deletion secounded 2 Note 3 References 4 Sexual Predator Definition

[edit] Deletion secounded

This isn't an encyclopedia style article. The whole consept of sexual predator is ideological, politically motivated and biased. I propose that the article be deleted and 'sexual predator' redirected to human sexuality. Mlk2k6 12:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of my response in the section above for my opposition to deletion. If the article isn't encyclopedia style, you can amend it to be so. “Sexual predator” is phrase used in our society. If you can find research that it’s “ideological, politically motivated and biased,” put it in the article so people seeking to learn about sexual predators will know that. If you can’t find independent evidence to that effect, then your opposition is solely due to your own opinions and biases and that is not encyclopedic. -Jim Campbell 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

A woman convicted of statutory rape would not be considered a "violent" sexual predator unless she actually used violence in the commission of that rape... This whole article seems emotive and poorly defined. I'm not familiar with U.S. law, but is 'sexual predator' actually a term used to classify offenders? If so, that should be the focus of this article. Otherwise it should simply be an explanation of the term.

Discussion of what different people consider a 'sexual predator' also seems rather pointless.

Rupert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.7.1 (talk • contribs)

[edit] References

The in-text citations need to be referenced in a notes section at the bottom of the article.

I also agree that the legal usage of the term should be clarified. I believe it has been used in a legal sense, but this article doesn't cover that very well. --DanielCD 01:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Predator Definition

Please take note of the various federal/Supreme decisions in cases such as Kansas v. Crane, Kansas v. Hendricks, and others, along with 2003 Iowa Supreme decisions in Italic textBarnesItalic textand Italic textGonzalesItalic text, in regard to specific definition and qualification to be classified a "sexually violent predator" by law, based upon extensive clinical work by national experts in the Mssachusetts Treatment Center and other civil commitment centers across North America. A sex offender, specifically, is a person who has committed sexual abuse, whether recidivist or not. A predator is a person who lures another person into his environment (or, conversely, assimilates into the other) for the purpose of sexual abuse. By definition, then, incest offenders (the least dangerous for recidivism once caught and punished) cannot be predators. A predator is further defined as one who is remorseless for his actions, is unamenable to treatment, and suffers from a "mental abnormality" coupled with a specific sexual proclivity that renders him unable to control his dangerous sexual behavior. Predators by definition qualify for civil commitment, not release to the community.

                                                                          rarepearl1Rarepearl1 21:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So "predator" is actually a legal term in the USA? I find this unbelievable. Call me prejudiced, but I think European countries are more reluctant to refer to human beings as animals in their legislation. Since the victory over fascism, that is.

"Most offenders against children are considered sexual predators no matter how many offenses they have". Um, by whom?, who says so?, some portions of wikipedia may be able to function without a citation for a while if generally eccepted but only if there a NPOV, it shouldn't be that hard to find a citation saying basicly that and until someone does I'm removing it.Colin 8 06:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)