Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Springfield's Tosado Sides with Sex Offenders

Apparently confused about the difference between right and wrong, Springfield, MA, City Council President Jose Tosado has taken up the cause of sex offenders living in the city. From a Dec. 4th article in the Springfield Republican: Council President Jose F. Tosado said it was unfair to target registered sex offenders with residency prohibitions... "We are going after different parts of the population, people who don't have a voice. Where do we draw the line?"

Asked to elaborate later, Tosado said the City Council with the sex-offender measure was going after those who already have paid for their offenses.

"I don't like the direction this council is going in," he said.

Message to Mr. Tosado: Pedophiles do not "learn their lesson" - they do not change their minds about how they feel towards children. They are sexually attracted to young kids. Period. Spending three, five, or twenty years in prison is not going to change their sexual preference.

Sadly, there are many people in our society today who feel a very strong need to forgive criminals regardless of their crimes, and to pretend the offender never did a thing wrong upon his release. But we are not talking about burglars or tax evaders here. Sexual predators will always return to wanting to satisfy their sexual desires. More children are going to suffer abuse because of leaders and administrators who insist on coddling pedophiles and other predators.

City Councilor Timothy J. Rooke, who proposed the new restrictions which would prohibit sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of where our little ones tread, was quoted [from the article] as saying, "I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep on it. In fact, I would rent the bus to send them where they want to go."

Good job, Mr. Rooke. There are very many residents in the city who share that view. Unfortunately, Councilor Mazza Moriarty isn't one of them.

Councilor Rosemarie Mazza Moriarty opted to side with Tosado on the issue. She mentioned that a concern about the ordinance was that there might not be any place left in the city for offenders to live, given the spread of parks and schools.

Awww. What a shame. So the answer, then, is to just allow predators to coexist near children? That is ridiculous. Actually, it's worse: It's sickening. And what will be your consoling speech, Ms. Moriarty, to the families of victims of repeat offenders. You do know that sexual predators are often repeat offenders, don't you?

Springfield needs better leadership on the City Council. For the sake of our city's children and other innocents, those leaders who care more about the welfare of criminals than their victims (past or future) should be put on notice: Start representing the interests of the law-abiding citizens of Springfield or find another part-time job.


- "Urban Compass" Report Here


* *


At 1:57 PM, Anonymous kiokwus said...

Someone is lacking in education. There is a vast difference between a sexual predator and a sex offender. True sex predators need monitoring due to the history they have, but consist of less than 1% of all sex offenders. On the other hand, sex offenders consist of crimes such as skinny dipping, urinating behind dumpsters, boyfriend/girlfriend being under age, familial relationships such as parent, relative, friend or authoritative person known to the victim. Over 90% of all sex offenses are from someone the victim knows and trusts.

The media and elected officials would have the public believe there is a predator behind every bush or tree. This is pure fear mongering and is farthest from the truth. Recidivism rates for OFFENDERS is 5.3% with a conviction for a new sex offense being 3.2%, hardly the gross amount you would have people to believe. There is a high rate of success for offenders with counseling and for victims to be survivors with again, correct counseling. Visit www.roarforfreedom.com to learn more about sexual abuse.

At 2:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hate to burst your vilalantical, pious blog with your misinformation, but not every sex offender on the registry are NOT pedaphiles.

Do your homework.

Note, California alone will have 800 new sex offenders EVERY year. That includes concentual contact, and entrapment by police.

At 7:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would anyone who wants to bring peace and happiness to earth, wish their personal pain on the rest of the world forever? For the money!
Politicians and Law Enforcement with the help of victims advocate groups has lied to the public.
The reason victim’s advocates continue their style of activity is they are cashing in.
Encourageing the infliction of pain and suffering rather than peace is a distructive activity use by theses activist.
Requireing the breakup of families is extending intitlement which can only fail everyone.
The intitled have no room left for those that can not afford to buy justice.
See how children as young as 3 year old children have been placed on the registry.
How citizens are held indefinitely after their sentence has been served.

See it now on You Tube at

At 11:18 PM, Blogger Bill Dusty said...

I wish you folks would "do your homework" before you respond to blogs.

The restrictions would be for sex offenders against children, hence the requirement that they not be within 2,500 feet of schools and parks. I believe the first two paragraphs in the news article were fairly clear on that:

"A proposal to restrict where registered sex offenders can live sparked exchanges between two city councilors tonight, and a discussion about protecting children, bullying and constitutionality.

Councilor Timothy J. Rooke proposed prohibiting certain sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, park or wherever children gather."

Now, why would anyone in their right mind NOT want to restrict child sex offenders from being near children? That is what this issue is about. Furthermore, you folks only do pedophiles and other violent sex offenders a great favor by insisting on changing the issue to skinny dippers and other non-violent offenders. You would rather see children placed at risk than restrict the residence of convicted sex offenders of children. That is ill.

Kiokwus, you say the rate of recidivism is only a mere 5.3%? Would your own children be included in that apparently insignificant rate, or is that 5% only bad news for folks you don't know? I'm thinking it's that latter. By the way, the recidivism rate you state is questionable. Those stats only cover reported repeat offenses within the first three years after release from prison. The Center for Sex Offender Management, an agency run by the federal government, has the rate of repeat child sex offenses pegged at between 10 and 40%.

It is true that most violent sex offenses are committed by known assailants. But in cases where we surely know where sex offenders are located, would it not be logical and responsible to keep them at a distance from their known temptation?


At 9:00 AM, Blogger gd said...

hey Kiokwus
We the people think .0001% is too much of a repeat.
Offenders are mostly poeple taking advantage of other people, not skinny dipping.
knowing and trusting a sex OFFENDER is worse than predator.
you must have some 1st hand experience eh. At least you got victim right.Its children we should only care about.I'm concerned for victim only.
only real success is to keep them all in jail, predators and your nice child sexual offenders.
statiscally your 100% off target on this one

At 4:53 AM, Blogger Keith Richard Radford Jr said...

Please watch for our movie in the works by Keith Richard Radford Jr. targeting hate groups who for political reasons use hate to sway public opinion for personal and political gain.
The torture sex offenders have endured wile laws have been misdirected as a smoke screen to further the hate agenda of a nation intoxicated with greed and prejudice's to keep fear alive. Interviews of over 50 sex offenders at many levels of assessment and how they have been used by lawmakers, politicians, and community's, also including many Doctors, Journalists, Ministers, Writers, and other parties offering their solutions to the basic fundamental flaws in the construction of such laws.


Post a Comment

<< Home