Sex Offenders...

[nbs2]

I will have to do some research later to get the numbers of sex offenders today as compared to 20 years ago. I would think the number would be much higher, based on more people reporting the crimes and the fact that the crimes have increased. It is sad and sick, and I don't know how we will stop such crimes, but I do believe the crime rate for sexual offenses as increased.

As you validly point out there are several reasons for which the rate can increase. I believe that having a list of known offenders has helped reduce the recurrance and opportunity for recurrance. As an example, when my wife and I begin to house hunt, I will be checking the area for offenders. I will not raise my children with a neighbor who has a known predilection to commit offenses against children.

Even now - we don't have kids, but my wife likes to run in the mornings after I leave for work (at about 7:30 or so) - I check the list every few months.

If many are truly unable to see that they are committing wrong, I would rather not give them the opportuity.

 

[floriflee]

floriflee,

Reading stories like yours tend to sway me a bit in my thinking that the sex offender lists don't do much good, however then I begin to realize that sadly even with the sex offender list the same thing could have happened to you.

Do I think the list is the catch-all end-all solution to our sex offender problems? Not by a long shot.

I agree with the list first and foremost because, at the very least, it can boost awareness for people. When I was molested there was no such thing as the list, and I wonder if any of the others who were hurt by this guy (I believe I was the first to get him reported) would have known better to be aware of him had they had the resources to know what he was really like. His family certainly wasn't doing anything to help squash his habit--it seemed more like they were catering to it--and I doubt they were letting their acquaintances know about his problem. Thus, others were unknowingly putting themselves in harms way.

I also agree with the list because in some small way it humiliates the offenders--a payback for humiliating their victims. On the other hand, though, I realize that there may be those who have truly tried to rehabilitate themselves who may be unduly humiliated for what is longer than necessary. Do I want them to suffer (even if it's the same guy that did this to me)? No. The problem is ascertaining when someone has really been rehabilitated. I can't really think of a catch-all way of determining that. I suppose if the list is used properly by people, they will become more aware of the offenders without completely ostrisizing them. People would try to avoid putting them in situations where the offenders would be tempted to offend again much like helping alcoholics avoid alcoholic temptations.

 

[maestro55]

As you validly point out there are several reasons for which the rate can increase. I believe that having a list of known offenders has helped reduce the recurrance and opportunity for recurrance. As an example, when my wife and I begin to house hunt, I will be checking the area for offenders. I will not raise my children with a neighbor who has a known predilection to commit offenses against children.

Even now - we don't have kids, but my wife likes to run in the mornings after I leave for work (at about 7:30 or so) - I check the list every few months.

If many are truly unable to see that they are committing wrong, I would rather not give them the opportuity.

However, even without the lists, there could very well be someone in your neighborhood out to strike your wife or kids. So that brings me back to the question if the list does anything to really stop sex offenders. Perhaps it does provide awareness as floriflee says, but as she says it is also there to humiliate these people. What about when it humiliates innocent people who have already suffered a prison stay for false accusations made against them. Again as I said earlier this may be rare, but once case, IMHO, is too many. Also humiliates people when it is a situation where a 18 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, and we already discussed this and yes it can and does sometimes happen. So you go and look up and see this guy in your neighborhood, perhaps a great guy who would never harm anyone, but you don't don't the extent of the situation, and perhaps if you did move into the community, you wouldn't think the same about the guy. While at the same time the preacher next door may have been molesting little boys for years, and yet your kids go to Sunday school with him every Sunday. Scary thought, but it happens, and it is just more proof that the list won't stop it.

 

[nbs2]

However, even without the lists, there could very well be someone in your neighborhood out to strike your wife or kids....Also humiliates people when it is a situation where a 18 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, and we already discussed this and yes it can and does sometimes happen. So you go and look up and see this guy in your neighborhood, perhaps a great guy who would never harm anyone, but you don't don't the extent of the situation, and perhaps if you did move into the community, you wouldn't think the same about the guy. While at the same time the preacher next door may have been molesting little boys for years, and yet your kids go to Sunday school with him every Sunday. Scary thought, but it happens, and it is just more proof that the list won't stop it.

I agree that there could be someone in the neighborhood that hasn't been caught (or maybe it is his/her first time). But, that doesn't make the lists useless, just imperfect. I would rather try to at least protect myself from known dangers, and hope that I can make smart decisions about the unknown. I know that if I go to Southeast DC at night, I will most likely get mugged. So, I don't go there. I could very easily get mugged if I go for a walk in my neighborhood (but I still try to be careful) and meet kind wonderful people in SE. But based on history, I prefer to avoid SE and feel safe where I live. My kids teacher may or may not be an unkonown child molester, but I would rather take that chance than let my kid go to a school where I know the teacher has molested children. That is what the lists facilitate.

As for the convicted innocents or the 18yo with the vindictive gf? The convicted innocents are a tragedy, but does that mean we close down our jails just in case innocents are sent there? And the 18yo with the gf? I have noticed that different states run their programs differently and some don't release information about those totally unlikely to repeat their crime (I doubt that the 18yo ever has sex with someone w/o checking their DL) - which is generally just guys...I would support withholding details of those in that category, but I believe that anybody outside that category should, and must, have their information released.

 

[LethalWolfe]

As you validly point out there are several reasons for which the rate can increase. I believe that having a list of known offenders has helped reduce the recurrance and opportunity for recurrance. As an example, when my wife and I begin to house hunt, I will be checking the area for offenders. I will not raise my children with a neighbor who has a known predilection to commit offenses against children.

Even now - we don't have kids, but my wife likes to run in the mornings after I leave for work (at about 7:30 or so) - I check the list every few months.

If many are truly unable to see that they are committing wrong, I would rather not give them the opportuity.

I don't want to live next to murders, kidnappers, armed robbers or drug traffickers/dealers, but, AFAIK, they don't have lists. If a public list is okay for sex offenders why isn't it okay for other types of violent criminals? And if sex offenders are so dangerous maybe people should lobby for longer sentences/strong punishments for them?

If studies show the sex offenders list helps reduce attacks then maybe the ends do justify the means, and maybe we should consider lists for other types of criminals as well. But that is a slippery looking slope considering the Constitutional foundations of our criminal justice system. If studies can't show the sex offender list helps reduce attacks then I think it's a dangerous piece of feel-good legislation that can lull people into a false sense of security and it should be done away with.


Lethal

 

[solvs]

Holy ****! There are 365 in my area! And I'm near a school. Gotta love L.A. A lot of them are listed as other, but there are a couple of child molesters right here in the neighborhood. 3 schools nearby. I wonder why these people find it so hard to control their urges?

 

[LethalWolfe]

As for the convicted innocents or the 18yo with the vindictive gf? The convicted innocents are a tragedy, but does that mean we close down our jails just in case innocents are sent there?

Last time I checked you are innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a court of law in the US. Our legal system, hell the very foundations of our country, is rightfully weighted on the side of the citizen. The pressure is on the state to prove that that the citizen committed a crime. The pressure is not on the citizen to prove they did not commit a crime. I'd rather see a guilty man go free because he wasn't Mirandized than see an innocent man sent to jail because he was unlawfully interrogated.

No, we don't go into hyperbole land and unlock all the jail cells nationwide, but we do make sure that during the course of an investigation and trial the state respects the Constitutional and legal rights of every citizen in this country.


Lethal

 

[nbs2]

Last time I checked you are innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a court of law in the US. Our legal system, hell the very foundations of our country, is rightfully weighted on the side of the citizen. The pressure is on the state to prove that that the citizen committed a crime. The pressure is not on the citizen to prove they did not commit a crime. I'd rather see a guilty man go free because he wasn't Mirandized than see an innocent man sent to jail because he was unlawfully interrogated.

I am not addressing the justice system. All I am saying is that if a person is convicted, they are listed on the offender list upon release. If after the conviction, release, and listing, evidence turns up indicating that the person was innocent - they should then be removed from the list. Being on the list is not a reversible error (see: general anti-death-penalty arguments).

I don't want to live next to murders, kidnappers, armed robbers or drug traffickers/dealers, but, AFAIK, they don't have lists. If a public list is okay for sex offenders why isn't it okay for other types of violent criminals? And if sex offenders are so dangerous maybe people should lobby for longer sentences/strong punishments for them?

I think that the great distinction between the violent crimes listed above and the sex offenders is that the above target people of any age (but generally adults). The sex offenders tend to target children, who are viewed as the weak and vulnerable in our society (and validly so). Another problem is that if we can take the idea that it is difficult (or almost impossible) for the offender to not repeat, either because of their earnest belief in their harmlessness or because of their predatory nature, then maybe we should ensure that people do not expose their children to that danger.

I would advocate for longer sentences. I think that current sentences are too light. But, if we cannot change these people, can we lock them up for life? I have a hard time seeing that happening anytime soon.

Remember, the list making - and this whole discussion - must be viewed in the light that targets are generally not adults, but children.

 

[floriflee]

When it comes to crime and human nature we do not have a perfect system, nor do I believe that we will have one anytime soon. What the list is supposed to do is raise awareness and, hopefully, prevent some sexual offenses from happening. I don't think the list by itself will keep sexual predators from victimizing again. I would think it would have to be a combination of people being aware of the potential problem the offender may have and the offender getting some sort of treatment or therapy for his problem.

I don't know how old the list is, but it seems like a relatively new development (i.e., within the last 10 years or so). It will probably take more time to get worthwhile statistics as to the effectiveness of the list.

If any others have any better ideas for trying to protect children (and perhaps yourselves) from sex offenders I'm all ears.

I would also be an advocate for harsher sentences--especially for repeat offenders.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I am not addressing the justice system. All I am saying is that if a person is convicted, they are listed on the offender list upon release. If after the conviction, release, and listing, evidence turns up indicating that the person was innocent - they should then be removed from the list. Being on the list is not a reversible error (see: general anti-death-penalty arguments).

And IMO the public list pushes the edge of our justice system. What happened to "paying one's debt to society" or "the punishment fitting the crime"?

I think that the great distinction between the violent crimes listed above and the sex offenders is that the above target people of any age (but generally adults). The sex offenders tend to target children, who are viewed as the weak and vulnerable in our society (and validly so). Another problem is that if we can take the idea that it is difficult (or almost impossible) for the offender to not repeat, either because of their earnest belief in their harmlessness or because of their predatory nature, then maybe we should ensure that people do not expose their children to that danger.
I would advocate for longer sentences. I think that current sentences are too light. But, if we cannot change these people, can we lock them up for life? I have a hard time seeing that happening anytime soon.

I tried to sift thru a few sites but I was unable to find any data that separated pedophiles from other sex offenders. Do you have any links to sites giving that kind of data? If the point is to protect children why don't we just tattoo a symbol on their cheek and to kids not to go near people w/said symbol on their cheek? And why isn't the list just pedophiles?

From what I've read sex offenders are actually unlikely to be repeat offenders, and many studies have shown they are even less likely to repeat if they are receiving treatment.

Because sex offenders are not very likely to be repeat offenders, because only a fraction of victims come forward, and because the victims almost always have a relationship w/their attacker (a sex offender just nabbing a stranger off the street is very rare) are all reasons why I'm not too gung-ho about "the lists."

I think more time and money should be spent educating kids (PSA's during TV shows aimed at kids, programs at school, parents getting involved etc.,), educating adults (PSA's letting people know it's okay to come forward and to call help lines, etc.,) to try and make people feel more comfortable in talking about an attack. I think more time and money should be funneled to police stings and investigations to catch sex offenders as well as more time and money going towards court mandated treatment programs.

I'm not "pro sex offender" or anything like that but I am against feel good legislation (which I think the public lists largely are) especially feel good legislation that erodes civil liberties.

I don't know how old the list is, but it seems like a relatively new development (i.e., within the last 10 years or so). It will probably take more time to get worthwhile statistics as to the effectiveness of the list.

Many (if not all States) already kept tabs on sex offenders, but it wasn't until relatively recently (Megan's Law) that info was required to be available to the public. California, for example, has kept tabs on sex offenders sense 1947. Of course that meant that gay men in CA convicted of sodomy laws back in the '70s had to register as sex offenders once Megan's Law passed in '96. Thankfully the ACLU stepped in and got said people convicted of said sodomy laws removed from the sex offenders list in '97.

Taken from the PDF linked to below:

Washington, which passed a public notification law in 1990, preceding Megan's Law, is the only state that has researched the efficacy of its public notification law. The State of Washington found no reduction in sex crimes against children; however, a benefit was the level of community education regarding sex crimes (Matson & Lieb, 1996). At this writing, there are no other published studies that demonstrate the efficacy of Megan's Law.

Center of Sex Offender Management FAQ
paper from the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives
PDF found at the American Probation and Parole Association (long but informative).


Lethal

 

[maestro55]

Not already seeing a post one some news out of Maine, before I go off to bed I thought I would revive this thread. I hope no one minds, but reading this news stories, it sheds new light on my argument against a sex offenders database. The story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060417/ap_on_re_us/brf_maine_shootings) speaks of a 20 year old guy who shot and killed two registered sex offenders, and then later shot himself. It makes you wonder how this guy knew about the sex offenders, but chances are he used one of the databases, or someone else with the same intent could.

Some might argue with me that these sex offenders have no right to live, but I am a pacifist, and so though I do not condone the actions of the sex offender, I will defend their right to live. This also assumes they were guilty in the first place.

The fact of the matter is, this kind of system, of a database of offenders, opens up doors for this kind of activity. I wonder if those two guys would be alive right now if there was not a sex offender database. You might debate that if they were still alive they would strike again, however, we don't know if they were guilty, nor can we assume they would strike again.

..its an old thread, but this is new news to really think about.

 

[Peyton]

If you abuse a child, all applicable appendages should be chopped off. I'm not kidding, I hate this. This ruins lives, and its a mental illness that effects way to many people

 

[calculus]

I don't think I would check a sex offender register. This is because I don't know what I would do differently if I knew an offender was living in the area. I think that it just leads to increased anxiety. Sex offenders can be anywhere and of course are only registered when caught. How does knowing specifically where there are help?

 

[greatdevourer]

we can't disarm every citizen at the same time lest we fall into a totalitarian system like communist countries of the past or nazi germany

Wtf? We must all be armed to the teeth lest we fell the need to slaughter those deemed less than ourselves?

 

[MarkCollette]

Wow, after all the time I've wasted on match.com, there's a list of people to hook up with, for free!

 

[floriflee]

Wow, after all the time I've wasted on match.com, there's a list of people to hook up with, for free!

Yes! Finally a site that has a list of true real winners....

 

[maestro55]

If you abuse a child, all applicable appendages should be chopped off. I'm not kidding, I hate this. This ruins lives, and its a mental illness that effects way to many people

I knew someone would go about it as if they deserved to die. However, I hope there is someone that agrees that a list just promotes the wrongful murdering of people who have been released from prison for such crimes. I don't condone the activity, but I don't condone murder either.

 

[Chuckles]

People who hurt children mentally and physically through sex should walk around with nothing inbetween their legs. I'm dead serious.

 

[Leareth]

I have looked at a couple of the sites and i was struck by how loosely sex offender is defined
What exactly is a 3rd degree intent to rape? would not most drunk guys/girls at a party trying to get laid fall under this ?
Some of these people were listed because they had pictures of naked babies not porn but just baby pictures...
dont get me wrong I think all real rapist should be castrated to prevent them from breeding but some of these "sex offenders" dont seem to be such... like the woman with the naked baby(her own kid) pictures? or the guy for brushing his girlfriend's 4 year old daughters hair???

 

[solvs]

I have looked at a couple of the sites and i was struck by how loosely sex offender is defined

Which is one of the reasons why their rights should be protected. Even if it isn't true, just being accused of something can ruin your life. I wouldn't know about this is particular, but I can imagine being lumped in with child molesters because you're a 17 yo who slept with your 16 yo significant other or were accused of rape even though you didn't do anything must not be terribly fun. And even if you are guilty, whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers.

Doesn't change how I feel about them personally, but I try very hard not to judge or hate.

 

[CorvusCamenarum]

Which is one of the reasons why their rights should be protected. Even if it isn't true, just being accused of something can ruin your life. I wouldn't know about this is particular, but I can imagine being lumped in with child molesters because you're a 17 yo who slept with your 16 yo significant other or were accused of rape even though you didn't do anything must not be terribly fun. And even if you are guilty, whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers.

Doesn't change how I feel about them personally, but I try very hard not to judge or hate.

Actually there was a case like that a while back; I remember it making the news here. Unfortunately I don't remember the details. Short form: 18yo guy, 16yo girl. Age of consent was over 16 in the particular state. Girl gets pregnant, someone [in authority] at her school informed the police, guy gets arrested. Now here's the kicker - the guy didn't bail on her, wanted to take care of her and the baby, got a job and everything. Both the girl and her mother get up in court and ask that the guy not be sent to jail because the two kids are really happy together and he's doing the right thing by her etc. Court sends kid to jail anyway, and he has to register when he's released. Tell me if that's fair.

In other news, I punched in my zip code and found two [unrelated] offenders living at the same address. Creepy.

 

[sam10685]

Why the hell do they allow sex predators to "register" and live amongst us? it's like saying "cogradulations sir. we're going to allow a terrorist to live down the street from you because we're too cheap to lock him up." what gives? sex offenders need to be put on death row and dealt with A.S.A.P.

 

[mpw]

Why the hell do they allow sex predators to "register" and live amongst us? it's like saying "cogradulations sir. we're going to allow a terrorist to live down the street from you because we're too cheap to lock him up." what gives? sex offenders need to be put on death row and dealt with A.S.A.P.

You just can't judge so quickly or generally. Unless you've sat there in the trial heard the evidence and know all the circumstances you can't make that call.

I know at least three of these 'Sex Offenders' you'd like to see killed who are good friends who I'd trust without hesitation not to be a danger to anybody of any age.

As has already been said its too easy to be put on a sexual offenders registry when you've done little or nothing actually wrong, although it may be technically illegal, and all to easy for some dangerous people to keep off the list or never get convicted.

 

[solvs]

sex offenders need to be put on death row and dealt with A.S.A.P.

So, you didn't read my post at all then?