So does this make me Pro- Child molestor?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It is a myth because the molester lurking in the bushes is the rarity in America. It obviously does happen, but 90% of molesters are friends or family members. Yet, our criminal justice system is overwhelmingly focused on strangers.

Originally Posted by stevew

I think he's correctly stating that more molestations are done by "Friends of the family and family members."

I am not disagreeing with this at all. The numbers show that more crimes against children are done by those closest to them (i.e., family and friends, teachers, etc.). However, I don't think we can discount stranger danger as a myth. While the media does play these things up, I would still not trust my children with just anyone off the street, regardless of what the numbers state. The story I spoke of last week regarding the 7 year old girl who was murdered in Florida, she was abducted on her way home. While it is conceivable that it was someone close to her that committed this crime, it is more likely that a stranger is guilty, just going on the nature of the incident.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So then what is your solution? Don't people have a right to know if a sex offender is living next to them or near their child's school?

My attitude has always been that criminal justice policy should be based upon what works to decrease sexual violence. If the public knowledge isn't decreasing sexual violence, then it seems like a waste of resources. And if a released sex offender is still seen as a danger, then tell your representative to vote for longer sentences. Keep them in prison as long as you want. However, once they are out, it does not make a lot of sense to adopt policies which on the whole might increase their risk of recidivism.

As a side note, since most registries were applied retroactively, there are many people on the lists with crimes from 20 years ago. In those cases there seems to be a record that the person is reformed. Especially in such instances, I'm not sure what value the information adds.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I am not disagreeing with this at all. The numbers show that more crimes against children are done by those closest to them (i.e., family and friends, teachers, etc.). However, I don't think we can discount stranger danger as a myth. While the media does play these things up, I would still not trust my children with just anyone off the street, regardless of what the numbers state. The story I spoke of last week regarding the 7 year old girl who was murdered in Florida, she was abducted on her way home. While it is conceivable that it was someone close to her that committed this crime, it is more likely that a stranger is guilty, just going on the nature of the incident.

I'm using the term "myth" not in the sense that is "mythical," just that it has developed into something much larger than the truth. Unfortunately, the focus on strangers has driven criminal justice policy in cases of child molestation and adult rape.

[JonInMiddleGA]

LOL, almost seven months between posts from John Galt & it's attacking the registration of sex offenders that brings him out of the woodwork. Too damned funny.

[Autumn]

Hmm, I checked out the registry for my town. Two of the 20 people listed work at Dunkin Donuts.

There were two or three that were charged with possession of child porn, basically. Most were sexual assault crimes, a few were exposure that I suppose might not have been sexual. several were "sexual misconduct" which is not explained.

I generally agree that we need to decide to just not release people who have committed crimes we don't think they can stop committing. It doesn't really make sense to release them and then have these sort of registries. There's nobody in the world who wants their kids living next to a molester, and so the registry is kind of a sham, implying that only some people will care about these guys living or working near them.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

LOL, almost seven months between posts from John Galt & it's attacking the registration of sex offenders that brings him out of the woodwork. Too damned funny.

I thought that as I was deciding to post. It doesn't look good for me. It just happens to be an area of law that I know a bit about.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by John Galt

My attitude has always been that criminal justice policy should be based upon what works to decrease sexual violence. If the public knowledge isn't decreasing sexual violence, then it seems like a waste of resources. And if a released sex offender is still seen as a danger, then tell your representative to vote for longer sentences. Keep them in prison as long as you want. However, once they are out, it does not make a lot of sense to adopt policies which on the whole might increase their risk of recidivism.

As a side note, since most registries were applied retroactively, there are many people on the lists with crimes from 20 years ago. In those cases there seems to be a record that the person is reformed. Especially in such instances, I'm not sure what value the information adds.

Or, they have done this again but haven't been caught and/or it wasn't reported. Everything you have said makes sense, and I am not arguing with you, but I personally don't believe in rehabilitation for child abusers/molesters, I would rather see them eliminated from society. Permanently.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Or, they have done this again but haven't been caught and/or it wasn't reported. Everything you have said makes sense, and I am not arguing with you, but I personally don't believe in rehabilitation for child abusers/molesters, I would rather see them eliminated from society. Permanently.

That's why I said seemingly. 20 years, though, is a long time. There are certainly cases where molesters do seem to genuinely show remorse and don't repeat. This most often happens when the molester commits the crime while a juvenile. So, if a 16 year old molests an 8 year old, in many instances the offender can on to live a normal happy life. Because a large percentage of molesters were themselves molested as children, they often have a high level of confusion about appropriate sexual behavior. This often manifests in the teen years and does not necessarily indicate a lifetime desire.

With all of that being said, I'm more than happy to have increased prison penalties on child molesters. I just think a lot of the policies after release are designed to make people feel better but accomplish little (or may actually be counterproductive). Instead, there are states like Arizona which has adopted a 20-year mandatory minimum for possession of child porn where each image is one count and the sentences have to be served consecutively. And the images don't even have to be nudes (the USSC held as much). Meanwhile, Arizona has some of lightest penalties for actual child rape (the most aggravated form of child molestation). It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That's why I said seemingly. 20 years, though, is a long time. There are certainly cases where molesters do seem to genuinely show remorse and don't repeat. This most often happens when the molester commits the crime while a juvenile. So, if a 16 year old molests an 8 year old, in many instances the offender can on to live a normal happy life. Because a large percentage of molesters were themselves molested as children, they often have a high level of confusion about appropriate sexual behavior. This often manifests in the teen years and does not necessarily indicate a lifetime desire.

i think this is true for sure, but i also think that by-and-large what people are referring to here when they discuss it is the classic "older man molests little kid" occurence.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by John Galt

With all of that being said, I'm more than happy to have increased prison penalties on child molesters. I just think a lot of the policies after release are designed to make people feel better but accomplish little (or may actually be counterproductive). Instead, there are states like Arizona which has adopted a 20-year mandatory minimum for possession of child porn where each image is one count and the sentences have to be served consecutively. And the images don't even have to be nudes (the USSC held as much). Meanwhile, Arizona has some of lightest penalties for actual child rape (the most aggravated form of child molestation). It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

they don't have to be nude? in that case who decides they're "child porn?" shit...that's...scary.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What other crime, though, do we make giant lists and hound people out of house, home, employment, and if we can get that far, town for their presence on said list, though?

As molson said, all crimes are a matter of public record. It's tough to get a job with a felony on your record. Many organizations and housing offices will check this stuff too.

The nature of the crime is also important. As a society, we treat sex offenders at a much higher level of disdain as we do for domestic abusers. We feel that raping someone, especially a child, is about as low as you can go. But most importantly is the fact that many believe you can't "fix" sex offenders. That it's just something in them genetically or psychologically. They have a recidivism rate 4 times higher than non-sex offenders.

I fail to see why information is bad. It seems those upset about this should have their anger towards society for shunning sex offenders and not toward the law. The law simply passes on information, which I think is a good thing.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

On the original topic, the thing that might bother me is that if the neighbors are a particularly petty and Grundyish bunch, Glengoyne might well suffer the stigma of being labeled not just pro-child molester, but possibly a child molester himself. Why else wouldn't he sign the petition? It takes a certain amount of courage and conviction to stand up for someone you have no connection to and rail against the smallmindedness of society for equating crimes heinous and banal in their condemnation of that person. It takes much less courage on the part of others to assume Glengoyne had an ulterior motive, or a sympathy for the criminal, to make his stand.

Myself, I probably would have shrugged, said, "I'm not really a petition guy, I just don't wanna get involved," and closed the door. That leaves a very different impression on the guy getting signatures.

I've never really claimed to be smart or politically savvy, although the people I work with might disagree on that last point. I told my wife that the house might get egged with Halloween coming up. She's probably reconsidering ever leaving me home alone again. Although she is regularly encouraging me to interact more with the neighbors. This may not exactly be what she was talking about.

[Drake]

Since someone asked earlier how often parents on the board checked the registry...

I've got kids aged 18, 15 & 12. I checked out the hxxp link on page 2 to see the sex offender registry for my area.

That's the first time I've ever done that. My wife may check it, but if she has, we've never spoken about it.

(Of course, I also live about 10 miles from nowhere and don't have any neighbors close enough that I can actually see their houses, so that might have something to do with my perceived level of threat.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Although she is regularly encouraging me to interact more with the neighbors. This may not exactly be what she was talking about.

She'll learn, my wife did

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Megan's Law and the attached list is one that needs to be thrown out. It's a permanent scarlet letter, often for inconsequential things, as others have noted.

Even if the stupid things were stricken from the list-making and more serious crimes were the criteria as the list likely originally intended, I still say it should be revoked. If you want to rehabilitate people and re-integrate them into society, don't put them on a giant fucking blackball list.

I have always agreed with this. Go Izulde!

[Noop]

Careful Abe you're about to be butt fucked...

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Noop

Careful Abe you're about to be butt fucked...

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I don't feel we should punish someone their entire life for a crime they have already been punished for.

[Abe Sargent]

As someone who is saved by the grace of God, who works with the victims of sexual assault on a regular basis in my job, and who was also sexually abused as a child, I still believe the very idea of the list is wrong, because it says you can't change.

But you can. Through Christ, all things are possible. All things.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I don't feel we should punish someone their entire life for a crime they have already been punished for.

I doubt that someone who has been molested and/or abused as a child would agree with you.

Edit: I stand corrected after reading your next post.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I never understood this (but don't want to derail the topic). What's the difference between a hate crime and a regular crime? Wouldn't it still be assault?

The impact on the community is different

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I doubt that someone who has been molested and/or abused as a child would agree with you.

Edit: I stand corrected after reading your next post.

I appreciate that you left that here instead of just deleting it, cause it gave me a laugh!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As molson said, all crimes are a matter of public record. It's tough to get a job with a felony on your record. Many organizations and housing offices will check this stuff too.

Yup. But typically if you've managed to secure housing and employment with another felony on your record, you don't get an outraged public hounding you OUT of that employment and housing because of what you did time for.

Originally Posted by RainMaker[/quote

The nature of the crime is also important. As a society, we treat sex offenders at a much higher level of disdain as we do for domestic abusers. We feel that raping someone, especially a child, is about as low as you can go. But most importantly is the fact that many believe you can't "fix" sex offenders. That it's just something in them genetically or psychologically. They have a recidivism rate 4 times higher than non-sex offenders.

As I was trying to say last night, and as John Galt said better, the existence and use of the registry just seems like it's more likely to increase recidivism than to decrease it.

So the question, at least for me, is this: is the registry in fact even partially responsible for the four-fold difference? Because if it is, now you've got recursive logic at work. If the regular recidivism rate is separate from any increased rate caused by society's outrage that a sex offender isn't living off beetles in the desert, then you're exacerbating the potential problem by having that list in the first rate.

Comes back to what I said last night. If you believe you can fix 'em, then you need to give them the same opportunity to rejoin society as you would anybody else who serves their time. If you believe they are fundamentally unfixable, then they need to remain segregated from regular society.

But you have to be consistent about the approach. Without the consistency, you aren't doing anything to improve the public safety, and you might in fact be hindering it.

Realistically, how is that list going to be used?

1) A child disappears or a woman is raped or what-have-you in a particular area, and now you have a list of potential suspects to start with. Okay, that's reasonable. The culprit may not have actually been on that list, but if a child is raped and murdered and you have a list that says there are six kiddy-diddlers living in that area, seems reasonable you'd start with that.

2) Someone in the community is searching the list for something to get outraged about, finds it, and goes on a crusade to get him out of "my" community. Let him go be somebody else's problem, possibly literally.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I fail to see why information is bad. It seems those upset about this should have their anger towards society for shunning sex offenders and not toward the law. The law simply passes on information, which I think is a good thing.

I'm all for openness and transparency. That's not what I'm debating here.

Getting pissed off at society for using the information in an ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE WAY is pointless. It's like leaving the power outlets exposed around a toddler. You can say, well, the outlets need to be available for when I need to use them, but are you really going to be all that shocked when the toddler sticks a key or a paper clip into one of them? Are you going to yell at the kid? No. He's a kid. He's doing what kids that age do when certain circumstances present themselves.

By the same token, it shouldn't shock anybody that this is how society responds to the sex offender registry. Pun unintended.

Information is a good thing, but it's also a powerful thing, and so it has to be used properly. I'm not convinced that it's a better idea to release them from prison and post their names in a public place than to just keep them locked away, unless the idea is to keep punishing them without the state being on the hook for costs and outcomes.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It is a myth because the molester lurking in the bushes is the rarity in America. It obviously does happen, but 90% of molesters are friends or family members. Yet, our criminal justice system is overwhelmingly focused on strangers.

I love you JG!

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

As someone who is saved by the grace of God, who works with the victims of sexual assault on a regular basis in my job, and who was also sexually abused as a child, I still believe the very idea of the list is wrong, because it says you can't change.

But you can. Through Christ, all things are possible. All things.

FWIW, I completely disagree with you in regards to the changing. Perhaps as a teenager someone can change, but I have my doubts. As an adult, no way in hell is that person going to decide that touching children in a sexual manner is wrong. Some things can be rehabilitated, abusing children is not one of them.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm in agreement with John Galt and Izulde. I mean, yes, crimes are a matter of public record, but it seems sex offenders get their own little list that is more easily obtainable. You want to create lists of crimes, do it for everything, not just sex offenders. Hell, I wouldn't mind knowing if my neighbor was convicted of theft, for one.

Furthermore, the actions that localities do to "isolate" sex offenders (wasn't there one famous example where the only areas they could live was under a bridge?), tends almost designed to make them turn to the act again as they have nothing else to live for. It doesn't seem to work to rehabilitate the individual.

[Glengoyne]

Hey JG. Glad to see you posting.

You'd be surprised to know this, but I've always been a little reluctant to embrace Megan's law and those that followed.

For one thing. I'm not really against the school of thought that goes like. "So you molested a child." "Goodbye" ...think weakest link. Send them away for life, or put them down permanently. Either way. If we pass a law stating that that is the penalty, then let's do it. Kill'em, support them for life or least as long as they manage to live in the prison system...either way, I'm okay with it.

With Megan's law and the like, I'm left with a gray area when evaluating people on the list. This is because my impression is that a number of folks appearing on that list wouldn't objectively be considered a
threat to children. It is as Izulde mentioned earlier, a scarlet letter. It is something that doesn't go away long after your debt to society has been paid.

So I'm sure that some offenses call for this kind of reporting, but my perception is that the current broad brush approach causes more problems that it solves.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You want to create lists of crimes, do it for everything, not just sex offenders. Hell, I wouldn't mind knowing if my neighbor was convicted of theft, for one.

'Tony's Law' Would Require Marijuana Users To Inform Interested Neighbors | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Glengoyne]

My position is reasonably close enough JG and Isiddiqui, that they are probably reconsidering their opinion even as I type this.

[larrymcg421]

If someone is so dangerous to society that they need to be so closely monitored wherever they go, then they need to stay in jail longer. I agree with Isiddiqui that stigmatizing these people with these lists makes it even harder for them to be rehabilitated and only serves to increase the chances of recidivism. It gives us a false layer of protection and if anything makes us less safe.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Yup. But typically if you've managed to secure housing and employment with another felony on your record, you don't get an outraged public hounding you OUT of that employment and housing because of what you did time for.

There is no law against outrage. There is no law that states that people have to be nice to you. Your issue seems to not be with the law but with how people treat sex offenders. If you're saying we should treat sex offenders who have served their time, then so be it.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

As I was trying to say last night, and as John Galt said better, the existence and use of the registry just seems like it's more likely to increase recidivism than to decrease it.

So the question, at least for me, is this: is the registry in fact even partially responsible for the four-fold difference? Because if it is, now you've got recursive logic at work. If the regular recidivism rate is separate from any increased rate caused by society's outrage that a sex offender isn't living off beetles in the desert, then you're exacerbating the potential problem by having that list in the first rate.

Comes back to what I said last night. If you believe you can fix 'em, then you need to give them the same opportunity to rejoin society as you would anybody else who serves their time. If you believe they are fundamentally unfixable, then they need to remain segregated from regular society.
But you have to be consistent about the approach. Without the consistency, you aren't doing anything to improve the public safety, and you might in fact be hindering it.

Realistically, how is that list going to be used?

1) A child disappears or a woman is raped or what-have-you in a particular area, and now you have a list of potential suspects to start with. Okay, that's reasonable. The culprit may not have actually been on that list, but if a child is raped and murdered and you have a list that says there are six kiddy-diddlers living in that area, seems reasonable you'd start with that.

2) Someone in the community is searching the list for something to get outraged about, finds it, and goes on a crusade to get him out of "my" community. Let him go be somebody else's problem, possibly literally.

That's the issue at play. Many psychologists believe you can't fix this. But we also have people unwilling to lock them up for life or even better, castrate them. So you're stuck with this position of sex offenders who just can't stop being put back on the streets. The registry in a way is an attempt for parents to be able to proactively keep their kids away from these people.

If your daughter goes missing, do you want the police to search the local child molesters first or forget about them since they already served their time?

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm all for openness and transparency. That's not what I'm debating here.

Getting pissed off at society for using the information in an ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE WAY is pointless. It's like leaving the power outlets exposed around a toddler. You can say, well, the outlets need to be available for when I need to use them, but are you really going to be all that shocked when the toddler sticks a key or a paper clip into one of them? Are you going to yell at the kid? No. He's a kid. He's doing what kids that age do when certain circumstances present themselves.

By the same token, it shouldn't shock anybody that this is how society responds to the sex offender registry. Pun unintended.

Information is a good thing, but it's also a powerful thing, and so it has to be used properly. I'm not convinced that it's a better idea to release them from prison and post their names in a public place than to just keep them locked away, unless the idea is to keep punishing them without the state being on the hook for costs and outcomes.

It's a predictable response for a reason. Because we as a society don't like sex offenders. We as a society have decided this is a sick and twisted act done by sick and twisted people.

I still don't get what you're asking for here. Do you want to keep these things secret? Do you feel like you have no right to know if your neighbor raped a kid your daughter's age? Is it worse that convicted sex offender can't acclimate himself into society or a parent sent his kid for piano lessons to a child molester because that information was not available?

There is a simple solution for those who don't want to be shunned by society. Don't fucking commit a sex crime. I just don't understand why we have to protect people who fucked up majorly. There are consequences for raping or molesting someone. I have no sympathy for someone like that as their victim doesn't get to conveniently forget about the crime as soon as the offender is out of jail.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm in agreement with John Galt and Izulde. I mean, yes, crimes are a matter of public record, but it seems sex offenders get their own little list that is more easily obtainable. You want to create lists of crimes, do it for everything, not just sex offenders. Hell, I wouldn't mind knowing if my neighbor was convicted of theft, for one.

Furthermore, the actions that localities do to "isolate" sex offenders (wasn't there one famous example where the only areas they could live was under a bridge?), tends almost designed to make them turn to the act again as they have nothing else to live for. It doesn't seem to work to rehabilitate the individual.

That information is available though. You can go down to your courthouse and pick it up anytime. The sex offender information is more readily available because our society has felt it's a more important crime and the information is more important.

I have no problem though with marking other criminals. I think those convicted of a DUI should have to have a license plate that shows it.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If your daughter goes missing, do you want the police to search the local child molesters first or forget about them since they already served their time?

It's a predictable response for a reason. Because we as a society don't like sex offenders. We as a society have decided this is a sick and twisted act done by sick and twisted people.

I still don't get what you're asking for here. Do you want to keep these things secret? Do you feel like you have no right to know if your neighbor raped a kid your daughter's age? Is it worse that convicted sex offender can't acclimate himself into society or a parent sent his kid for piano lessons to a child molester because that information was not available?

There is a simple solution for those who don't want to be shunned by society. Don't fucking commit a sex crime. I just don't understand why we have to protect people who fucked up majorly. There are consequences for raping or molesting someone. I have no sympathy for someone like that as their victim doesn't get to conveniently forget about the crime as soon as the offender is out of jail.

I don't always agree with you RM, but you are completely spot-on with this one.

+1

[molson]

Ya, the choices aren't (1) life imprisonment or (2) supervision upon release.

The choice is really what to do with the convicted sex offenders that are out there - supervise them, or not, and to what degree.

[nole4sho]

I certainly am in favor of Megan's list being limited to those who have done harm to children. I do not believe that someone should be branded the same mark as a children rapist because he or she chose to run down the street naked.

[stevew]

The only time I have ever checked the database recently was to see if anyone I know is on it.

[Glengoyne]

After someone else posted regarding being able to see the specific offenses for individuals I checked out the CA site.

There have been changes since last time I visited.

First, not everyone shows up on the map, Only those convicted of crimes against children.

Second, I can see the offenses. Mostly this translates to 'lewd and lascivious acts against a child under the age of 14'. Allright. If you do that, then you are certainly crossing a line, where I'd agree with most punishments that even JIMG would suggest. As a note...I can see other sex offenders, whose addresses do not get displayed on the Map, and I can see their offenses(they are not related to children). I think, but this is unclear, that there is a third set of sex offenders whose crimes do not require the publication of their status on the web site.

So a lot of my concerns are addressed. That only leaves the bit about continuing to punish someone who has served their sentence, and presumably paid their debt to society. Addressing that gets notably dicier than the other issues.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you don't want to be labeled a sex offender, don't become one. I think that's the simplest solution.

Right, but clearly some people are on the list who are NOT sex offenders.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

So a lot of my concerns are addressed. That only leaves the bit about continuing to punish someone who has served their sentence, and presumably paid their debt to society. Addressing that gets notably dicier than the other issues.

See, the problem with crime and the subsequent punishment is, what do we consider to be justice and time served? What is considered a debt paid to society?

If someone is murdered, there is no amount of time served that will bring them back, just as executing them will not bring the victim back either. The same goes with other violent crimes. No amount of time in prison will take away the pain and suffering a rape/abuse victim has to endure for the rest of his/her life.

This is where the gray area really comes into play.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

So a lot of my concerns are addressed. That only leaves the bit about continuing to punish someone who has served their sentence, and presumably paid their debt to society. Addressing that gets notably dicier than the other issues.

Just think of it as a life sentence, with supervised release. When you're on parole, you're still serving your sentence. You're just doing it on more favorable terms. Supervision is a good deal for sex offenders.

Also remember that there's a lot of competing goals associated with sentencing. It isn't just rehabilitation, it isn't just paying your debt to the society. There's also protection of the community, and also pure punishment.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by nole4sho

I certainly am in favor of Megan's list being limited to those who have done harm to children. I do not believe that someone should be branded the same mark as a children rapist because he or she chose to run down the street naked.

I wholeheartedly agree. I really don't care if my neighbor down the street got caught pissing in the bushes at the lake

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Who is arguing that we should be giving equal punishment for pissing/streaking? I know that these COULD be included on these lists, but why not remove them and keep the lists around?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

It's terrible to think I'd have to register as a sex offender because my soft zone coverage was picked apart late.

Best euphemism ever!

[Apathetic Lurker]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Who is arguing that we should be giving equal punishment for pissing/streaking? I know that these COULD be included on these lists, but why not remove them and keep the lists around?

I dont think anyone is advocating equal punishment but the sad fact is in some jurisdictions those offenses are lumped in with the real criminals. The other sad fact is the majority of the public will grab the pitchforks and the rope without finding out all the facts once they find out someone is on a list of sex offenders.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Apathetic Lurker

I dont think anyone is advocating equal punishment but the sad fact is in some jurisdictions those offenses are lumped in with the real criminals. The other sad fact is the majority of the public will grab the pitchforks and the rope without finding out all the facts once they find out someone is on a list of sex offenders.

But its not really an argument for ending sex offender supervision altogether, as its been presented in this thread.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Right. It just seems like the interesting question is whether these should exist in the first place. Nobody wants to see some drunk guy who pissed in an alley labeled a sex offender. It seems (to me at least, from looking at a couple of these) that these are either excluded from these engines or the crimes are clearly labeled.

A friend of mine's father in California got arrested and convicted of gross and lewd behavior. He claimed he was peeing during a jog (although I think it was in an area known for homosexual behavior). My friend was very concered about this very issue, that he would be a sex offender for life. I searched for him on the California site, no hit.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Right, but clearly some people are on the list who are NOT sex offenders.

That's an issue with what classifies someone as a sex offender or not. Can you guys show me an example of someone on the registry for public urination?

[RainMaker]

So we should protect these kinds of people when they serve their time.

Police: Gang rape outside school dance lasted over two hours - CNN.com

[ISiddiqui]

What exactly is the point in saying someone "served" their time... if you really don't think they did.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is no law against outrage. There is no law that states that people have to be nice to you. Your issue seems to not be with the law but with how people treat sex offenders. If you're saying we should treat sex offenders who have served their time, then so be it.

Not exactly. My issue is that the public availability of the list encourages that treatment, which is directly antagonistic to any reasonable goal in existence if you're going to release them from prison.

That's the issue at play. Many psychologists believe you can't fix this. But we also have people unwilling to lock them up for life or even better, castrate them. So you're stuck with this position of sex offenders who just can't stop being put back on the streets. The registry in a way is an attempt for parents to be able to proactively keep their kids away from these people.

If the use of the registry were "Oh, I was gonna buy this house, but a sex offender is living in this neighborhood," that would be keeping their kids away from "these people."

Do you think that's how the public uses those lists even 50.1% of the time?

If your daughter goes missing, do you want the police to search the local child molesters first or forget about them since they already served their time?

Ah, but see, now we're getting into law enforcement and social profiling, which is an entirely different argument from "let the soccer moms have access to this list."

It's a predictable response for a reason. Because we as a society don't like sex offenders. We as a society have decided this is a sick and twisted act done by sick and twisted people.

And we as a society don't have the stones, evidently, to make any hard decisions about incarceration, termination, or as you mentioned, castration. It's easier to just let them out after such-and-such a time and then wave our hands and act all outraged after the fact.

I still don't get what you're asking for here. Do you want to keep these things secret? Do you feel like you have no right to know if your neighbor raped a kid your daughter's age? Is it worse that convicted sex offender can't acclimate himself into society or a parent sent his kid for piano lessons to a child molester because that information was not available?

You're still presenting a false alternative - that the only choices are sex offenders running around unhindered to prey on children or that people have unfettered access to this information. Frankly, and I know I'm repeating myself here, the issue is that presenting this information in this way does not have a positive outcome when it comes to the predictable way in which society will use it.

Think of it a little bit like the argument about suburbia and wildlife. As human communities grow, it forces wildlife out of where they had previously lived, and so you wind up with situations where cougars (the animal kind) are running around in suburbia. Eventually, there's going to be a conflict there.

Same idea here. The folks on this list are going to continually get pushed further and further out on the fringes of any given community. They have no stability in society, and that is going to increase their risk of recidivism. Is it better to have the information public and have it available to society in such a way that that risk increases, or for access to be the domain of law enforcement so they can protect the community?

There is a simple solution for those who don't want to be shunned by society. Don't fucking commit a sex crime. I just don't understand why we have to protect people who fucked up majorly. There are consequences for raping or molesting someone. I have no sympathy for someone like that as their victim doesn't get to conveniently forget about the crime as soon as the offender is out of jail.

You don't get it, do you? It isn't about "protecting people who fucked up majorly." It's about, look, we as a society have set up this social more, said "don't cross this line," and then mandated punishment for crossing the line. Well and good.

Then we let "these people" back into society, despite the mindset that the fundamental behavior is non-correctable, and put them in a situation that's going to increase the pressure on them to repeat the same reprehensible act we locked them up for in the first place. Why in any sane society is that a GOOD idea? There is a difference between shunning somebody and egging somebody on, and I'm of the firm belief that the way in which these lists are used marches inexorably towards a single outcome.

There is no damned way you're going to make these people behave as normal, functioning members of society after release if you continue to make problems for them after release. Either keep them locked up, institute the death penalty, or give them a chance to demonstrate their rehabilitation. If a sex offender falls into recidivism, society has only itself to blame given that set of circumstances. Such a fall could have been prevented, and not with "Megan's List."

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's an issue with what classifies someone as a sex offender or not. Can you guys show me an example of someone on the registry for public urination?

hxxp://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2007/03/florida_banishe.html

(from a few years ago, so the MSNBC link doesn't work anymore)


Juan Matamoros's full bladder is going to cost him. Twenty-one years ago, he had too much to drink, and was caught when he urinated on a street in Essex, Massachusetts. Matamoros was charged with "lewd and lascivious behavior" — which apparently got him classified as a sex offender. He currently lives in Deltona, Florida, with his wife and two young sons, but he's been ordered to pack up and move.

Deltona's ordinance, stricter than those of the state and neighboring cities, prohibits sex offenders and sexual predators from living within 2,500 feet of a school, bus stop, day-care center, park or playground. Matamoros lives on Brady Drive near three city parks, including Dewey Boster Park and a child-care facility.
The 49-year-old took the stand before Volusia County Judge Peter Marshall in DeLand on Monday to say he never molested anyone back in 1986, but just got drunk and urinated at the side of a car along a Massachusetts street when three people passed by and saw him. He requested he not have to move his two young sons to an area with a concentrated number of sex offenders.

Judge Marshall claims there's nothing he can do — the law is the law. He found Matamoros guilty without adjudication (the man's record does not contain a finding of guilt) and ordered him to move no later than July 1.

And here he is on the sex offender's list: hxxp://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=49272


(Goggle FTW!)