Sex Offender registries

[nightwind]

I have noticed that while there are registries for sex offenders posted online, this seems to be the only type of crimes in which a registry is posted.

I have always had mixed feelings about such a registry, as I have heard that the false allegation rate in such cases is most likely quite high. And many posted offenders may be the result of false allegations of sexual abuse resulting during child custody disputes and false allegations of rape that sometimes arise from rejected, and angry past lovers, etc.

I then got to wondering, why there are not registries for other crimes such as drug trafficking, drunk driving, burglary, assault, embezzlement, etc. some of which may result in trauma, loss of life, property, etc. And what would be the effect if law enforcement had to notify everyone of these folks?

Would that be a good idea or a bad one? Any thoughts on this?

[Ed]

I think that there is a specific law that enables this (Megan's Law?). These people have been convicted, it is far beyond the allegation stage. You might look up some of the fun crimes that they have been convicted of.

[Jessica Blue]

I then got to wondering, why there are not registries for other crimes such as drug trafficking, drunk driving, burglary, assault, embezzlement, etc. some of which may result in trauma, loss of life, property, etc. And what would be the effect if law enforcement had to notify everyone of these folks?

Would that be a good idea or a bad one? Any thoughts on this?


It smacks of persecution. Why not just make them wear a big C for criminal on their coats?

If they've done their time, offenders should be given a chance to start again. Take away this chance by throwing their past crimes back at them and exposing them to possible ostracism, abuse and mistrust from the public and it could possibly make things worse for general society. The harder it is for offenders to fit back in, the likelier it is for them to reoffend.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue



It smacks of persecution. Why not just make them wear a big C for criminal on their coats?

If they've done their time, offenders should be given a chance to start again. Take away this chance by throwing their past crimes back at them and exposing them to possible ostracism, abuse and mistrust from the public and it could possibly make things worse for general society. The harder it is for offenders to fit back in, the likelier it is for them to reoffend.

Of course, that does involve the risk of a "resozialized" child molester looking for another little girl right away.

In recent years, we´ve had relatively many cases of rape, child molestation in Germany etc. were the offender had already served jail time for previous assaults of the same kind - or had been given temporary leave from jail during his jail time without anyone checking wether or not he was likely to do such things again.

When a person has commited such a crime, the top priority must be to keep other, innocent people safe from him. He has chosen to become a criminal, so every restriction that is imposed on his life because of these crimes is entirely his own fault. He does not deserve any more sympathy in that respect than he has given his victims.
I do not advocate a "lock them up and throw away the keys" policy, but in some cases, with some crimes, we should not just forgive and forget once these people are free again.

[MoeFaux]

Oh dear, this is going to get me in more trouble.
I really hate the registered sex offender list. It just seems so wrong; the people have paid for thier crime, they've done the time. It's a violation of their rights to post their names everywhere. Man, it just seems wrong.
But....when I think about the Kid I used to babysit, well, if there were the slightest chance that someone would hurt her, I'd want to know about it and protect her.
Wow, it's a really tough call.
Has a sex offender given up the right to privacy? How about the Catholic priests that have been moved around the country? People should have known about that. But, where do you draw the line after a person has served their sentance. I don't know.

I think for everyhting else, it's wrong. That they have "John" TV that lists the names of men who have visited prostitues, well, that's wrong.
I guess my opinion is, is that if a person isn't harming anyone else, it's none of our business.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Oh dear, this is going to get me in more trouble.
I really hate the registered sex offender list. It just seems so wrong; the people have paid for thier crime, they've done the time.

Suppose the "registration" was part of the original sentancing? E.g. "You will serve 5 years and have your name placed on a sex offender's list"?

We've had this discussion here before, and I will say what I said then: I have no problem with a sexual offender's list for people who are convicted after such a law would be passed. My objection is to creating a sexual offender list that includes people who were convicted and sentanced before the creation of the list. That, to me, strikes of double jeopardy, as they are given another punishment for the same offense.

In the same way, it is an ex post facto violation. Consider an analogous situation. A guy was arrested for cocaine in 1955, and got charged with drug possession, served a short one month jail sentance, and then was released. In 1985 or whenever, congress passes a law that says the mandatory sentance for possession of cocaine is 8 years in prison. We can't go back and grab the guy who served his sentance and no insist that he has to serve 8 years because that is the minimum penalty for his crime. Adding an additional restriction to his sentance _after the initial sentance was already imposed_ is similarly wrong.

And yes, sex offender registry is an additional punishment, because it is a stigmatization.

Short answer: registry list ok, as long as it applies to those convicted after the registry list was created.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Suppose the "registration" was part of the original sentancing? E.g. "You will serve 5 years and have your name placed on a sex offender's list"?

We've had this discussion here before, and I will say what I said then: I have no problem with a sexual offender's list for people who are convicted after such a law would be passed. My objection is to creating a sexual offender list that includes people who were convicted and sentanced before the creation of the list. That, to me, strikes of double jeopardy, as they are given another punishment for the same offense.

In the same way, it is an ex post facto violation. Consider an analogous situation. A guy was arrested for cocaine in 1955, and got charged with drug possession, served a short one month jail sentance, and then was released. In 1985 or whenever, congress passes a law that says the mandatory sentance for possession of cocaine is 8 years in prison. We can't go back and grab the guy who served his sentance and no insist that he has to serve 8 years because that is the minimum penalty for his crime. Adding an additional restriction to his sentance _after the initial sentance was already imposed_ is similarly wrong.

And yes, sex offender registry is an additional punishment, because it is a stigmatization.

Short answer: registry list ok, as long as it applies to those convicted after the registry list was created.

This is a very well thought out answer. I like it very much.

I think you're right.

[Glory]

Sex offenders are different from other criminals. The rate of recidivism is very high amongst sex offenders and research has produced almost nothing by way of a cure for the illnesses that cause people to molest children and rape. These crimes are so abhorrent that we as a society are willing to curtail certain civil rights of individuals that may reoffend. And, we have every reason to believe that many of the registered offenders will reoffend. Also, other crimes are not motivated by recognized mental illnesses. Comparatively few burgalers feel an irresistable compulsion to break into buildings and steal things. Sex offenders are different and must be treated as such.

I do have some problems with Megan's Law, though. First and foremost, once an offender is released from prison, where is he supposed to go now that neighbors can band together and force him out of their area? Practically speaking, this law has caused a lot of trouble for law enforcement who have to figure out where to place released felons. No one wants these guys around and we can't keep most of them in prison for ever. It is too expensive and a violation of their rights. I do value the rights of the innocent over the rights of the guilty. It is a problem, though.

Megan's law also affects people who have made plea bargians. If someone pleas to a sex offense, registering with the database is part if the plea. That means that they are not necessarily guilty yet they are held up as guilty in front of the populace. This doesn't sit well with me. It leaves the door open for innocent people to be harrassed and denied a living because they didn't think that a trial would go their way. It also means that guilty people may refuse to plea. This can put the DA at somewhat of disadvantage. Convictions can be tough. The plea bargain can be usefull in ensuring that the guilty will do some time. Meagn's law makes any plea bargain less appealing to the alledged offender.

Ultimately, it is a tough call, however, the idea of applying a simmilar law to other criminals doesn't hold up. Some crimes are different and must be treated differently.

Glory

[nightwind]

So, are pedophiles such as the famous Mary K Letourneau, need monitoring all of their lives after release? Are people like this sick woman really beyond help?

[espritch]

And yes, sex offender registry is an additional punishment, because it is a stigmatization.

A sex offender registry is a statement of fact: these people are convicted sex offenders. If the truth stigmatizes them, that's their problem. Society's problem is to defend the victims - especially in the case of child molesters where the victims are those least able to defend themselves.

[Glory]

Originally posted by nightwind
So, are pedophiles such as the famous Mary K Letourneau, need monitoring all of their lives after release? Are people like this sick woman really beyond help?

Excellent questions. A lot of people are working on the answers but there is nothing definitive yet. One reason to assume that these people are beyond help is that assuming the opposite poses too high a risk. I don't know about Mary K. Letourneau though. She wasn't fondling kids in dark closets. She had a relationship that is considered inappropriate and was technically illegal. This is yet another illustration of how the registry can be misleading. There is no reason I know of to think that Ms. Letourneau poses an imminent threat to the neighborhood. Are there other registered sex offenders that are in simmilar situations?

Glory

[Nikk]

Originally posted by espritch


A sex offender registry is a statement of fact: these people are convicted sex offenders. If the truth stigmatizes them, that's their problem. Society's problem is to defend the victims - especially in the case of child molesters where the victims are those least able to defend themselves.

The big drawback of a registry is that it gives offenders a strong incentive to change their identity and go underground in order to avoid harassment. This makes police monitoring and any attempt at treatment impossible. It is therefore quite possible that a registry increases the risk to children.

Bear in mind that there are many very, very, very stupid people out there. In Britain a tabloid "outed" a number of sex offenders (pedophiles) and gave their addresses. Some of the addresses were wrong and innocent people had their houses attacked by rioters. One individual's house was attacked because he was known to be a pediatrician!

[WildCat]

It's easy to support sex offender registries in, say, a case of a 30 yr. old man molesting a 6 yr old child. But I've seen 19 yr. olds put on the list because they got their 16 yr. old girlfriend pregnant. I don't see the justice in that.

There should be some leeway about who goes on the lists.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by WildCat
It's easy to support sex offender registries in, say, a case of a 30 yr. old man molesting a 6 yr old child. But I've seen 19 yr. olds put on the list because they got their 16 yr. old girlfriend pregnant. I don't see the justice in that.

There should be some leeway about who goes on the lists.

When my religious parents found out about my very ungodly relationship with my boyfriend of 3 years, they threatened to press charges, throw him in jail and the like. He was 18, I was 17. The whole "statutory rape" charge in instances like that is ludicrous.
I really don't know where to draw the line. I just hate that once someone has paid for their crime that they still have their personal freedoms taken away. I like the idea suggested earlier that for some folks, being added to the registry should be part of thier sentance, rather than just something that's thrown on later. A lot of peoples lives are ruined because of that list. I'd like to see statictics on it, on who commitied heinious sex crimes and who just got on it for seeing a prostitute or being with with their underage girlfriend.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Chaos
He has chosen to become a criminal, so every restriction that is imposed on his life because of these crimes is entirely his own fault.

Really? So if we start torturing prisoners, it's entirely their own fault? Castrating them? Slowly killing them by boring through their eyes into their brain with a T-handle augur?

Our Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. If someone has served out whatever sentencing imposed upon them by the justice system, then that's that. They are citizens again, equal to every other citizen there. If there's a problem, it's due to the sentencing and the problem needs to be attacked from that angle.

He does not deserve any more sympathy in that respect than he has given his victims.

But he does deserve his rights.

[shanek]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Suppose the "registration" was part of the original sentancing? E.g. "You will serve 5 years and have your name placed on a sex offender's list"?

I'd be fine with that as long as a time period was added; e.g., "...for an additional five years" or even "...for the rest of your life." It should also be appealable.

Same goes for criminals and guns. "And you are forbidden to own or possess a firearm for an additional 3 years" or something like that. But it MUST be done through the justice system, where the person has an advocate who can argue against the sentencing and where the decision can be appealed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
These crimes are so abhorrent that we as a society are willing to curtail certain civil rights of individuals that may reoffend.

We are??? Must've missed a meeting...

This isn't something done by "society." It's something done by government. It's time people started realizing the difference between those two entities.

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek

This isn't something done by "society." It's something done by government. It's time people started realizing the difference between those two entities.

But then you'd be asking them to think for themselves. How dare you!!!

[nightwind]

So, it has been suggested that Ms. LeTourneaus case is different, and might should not be put on the list.
If Ms. LeTourneau, had of been a Mr. LeTourneau, should he have been put on the list?
So, if it is a woman who is the molester, it is a romance? If it is a man who is the molester, he is an evil pedofile, who should be put on the list?

Also according to statistics I have seen on reputable sites, the conviction rate of sex related crimes is about 85 % if you are guilty or not. These cases are mainly decided on emotion rather facts. Unless the person has an extremely competent lawyer who is experienced in these types of cases, they are going down, guilty or innocent, and when getting out, will then be put on the list.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


I'd be fine with that as long as a time period was added; e.g., "...for an additional five years" or even "...for the rest of your life." It should also be appealable.

Same goes for criminals and guns. "And you are forbidden to own or possess a firearm for an additional 3 years" or something like that. But it MUST be done through the justice system, where the person has an advocate who can argue against the sentencing and where the decision can be appealed.

These things differ from state to state, but typically these sanctions do have a set time (or for life) and operate as mandatory penalties as a result of the underlying conviction. The conviction is appealable and can be attacked by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This is all done through the justice system.

Now, if you don't like mandatory penalties, that is a different topic.

You also may be referring to the trend of seeking mental health related confinement of sex offenders once they serve their sentence. Mental hygene is a very sticky political topic. On one hand, it can be abused and even sounds sinister. On the other hand there are seriously ill people that really need help. Where paedophiles fall in this regard seems a tough question, as some of them do suffer from an illness that makes them a danger to others. However, since they were arrested and served the sentence for a crime based on their behaviour, keeping them confined longer reeks of dirty pool.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by nightwind
So, if it is a woman who is the molester, it is a romance? If it is a man who is the molester, he is an evil pedofile, who should be put on the list?



Gender has nothing to do with it. The problem is context. In most states all who are convicted of a sexual crime are put on the list. Some "sexual crimes" are scarier than others. Consider something like "third degree sexual abuse," a misdemeanor here, where a 20 year old is making out with his 15 year old girlfriend. He's on the list with the 40 year old guy that violently raped a 4 year old.

In the past 10 years or so, the state has started using multiple counts and consecutive sentences so that anyone convicted of the more awful child sex crimes get what are for all practical purposes life sentences. The list isn't really an issue then.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
These things differ from state to state, but typically these sanctions do have a set time (or for life) and operate as mandatory penalties as a result of the underlying conviction. The conviction is appealable and can be attacked by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This is all done through the justice system.

But can you appeal the listing separate of the rest of the sentencing itself? Can you argue that he should serve the 5 years, but shouldn't be placed on the list afterwards?

[espritch]

Shanek:

Our Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. If someone has served out whatever sentencing imposed upon them by the justice system, then that's that.

A few years ago there was a story about a man that raped a teenage girl, hacked off her arms, and left her lying in a ditch to bleed to death. She survived. When he was eligible for parole, they couldn’t find any place to send him since no community would allow him to move in. Last I heard he was living in a trailer on the prison grounds.

Personally, I find it hard to understand why they didn't just take him out and decently shoot him in the first place. But if he was moving in next door to you, wouldn’t you think you had a right to know about his past?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


But can you appeal the listing separate of the rest of the sentencing itself? Can you argue that he should serve the 5 years, but shouldn't be placed on the list afterwards?

Not if the listing is mandatory, as in "required." If one doesn't want on the list, one needs to not get convicted. I'm sure one could argue they shouldn't be on the list, but since it is mandatory upon conviction, the judge has no discretion, so it would be a worthless argument to everyone not billing by the hour.

[MoeFaux]

This is unspeakably awful:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0925cpsarrest-ON.html

He raped his infant son to death until the childs heart ruptured. I just gasped reading this. Horrible.

I thought this should be posted here in this thread.

[espritch]

This is unspeakably awful:

Well that should be proof enough that there is no kind and loving God that looks out for children.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by espritch


Well that should be proof enough that there is no kind and loving God that looks out for children.

Every xtian presented with that sentance would argue with it.

[espritch]

Every xtian presented with that sentance would argue with it.

No doubt.

"God stopped his hart to save him from further suffering and now he's smiling up in heaven with Jesus."

It's a friggin miracle.

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


We are??? Must've missed a meeting...

This isn't something done by "society." It's something done by government. It's time people started realizing the difference between those two entities.

If the populace does nothing about what the government does, they are providing tacit agreement with the actions in question. There was, as I recall, tremendous public support for Megan's law. I also recall a poll which indicated that over fifty percent of Americans would not mind surrendering a few civil rights in exchange for a safer society. I don't happen to feel that way but a lot of people do.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by nightwind
So, it has been suggested that Ms. LeTourneaus case is different, and might should not be put on the list.
If Ms. LeTourneau, had of been a Mr. LeTourneau, should he have been put on the list?
So, if it is a woman who is the molester, it is a romance? If it is a man who is the molester, he is an evil pedofile, who should be put on the list?

Who said that the Letourneau case was different because of her gender? For that matter, different from what exactly? I said that I knew of no reason why she should be suspected of posing a threat to society. I did not say why I thought that.

The reason is that her "victim" was not a child. He was not an adult, perhaps, but he was not a child. There was also no indication that Ms. Letourneau would do it again with another minor. It seems in every way to be an isolated incident. Thus, I do not think she belongs on the list. I am quite confident that there are several men on the list who do not belong there for simmilar reasons.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by espritch


Well that should be proof enough that there is no kind and loving God that looks out for children.

Yes it is. Why did you post it? I am afraid I fail to see how it adds anything to the discussion. Essentially, you have dropped an emotional, inflammatory bomb on the discussion which makes it impossible to continue looking at the issue logically and objectively. Plus, I really didn't need to know about that particular incident and desperately wish that I didn't. Now I have that lovely image to take to bed with me all because I responded to thread which, up until now, had been about civil rights.

Glory

[fishbob]

A sex offender registry is a statement of fact: these people are convicted sex offenders. If the truth stigmatizes them, that's their problem. Society's problem is to defend the victims - especially in the case of child molesters where the victims are those least able to defend themselves. It is not the job of the general public to carry out criminal sentencing. Putting released convicts names on a list for the public to watch out for is criminally stupid.

People convicted of these horrible crimes should be sentenced appropriately. Appropriately might include throwing away the key.

Creating a sex offender registry is a cheap, ineffective, political feel-good solution to a complicated and ugly problem.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Not if the listing is mandatory, as in "required." If one doesn't want on the list, one needs to not get convicted.

And that is the point. Discretion should be given in sentencing for such an invasion of privacy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
If the populace does nothing about what the government does, they are providing tacit agreement with the actions in question.

And how are people "doing nothing"? There are a lot of groups trying to get this overturned.

I also recall a poll which indicated that over fifty percent of Americans would not mind surrendering a few civil rights in exchange for a safer society.

Those people have absolutely no right to force that choice on me.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Glory


I also recall a poll which indicated that over fifty percent of Americans would not mind surrendering a few civil rights in exchange for a safer society.

Glory

that's just frightening.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by fishbob
It is not the job of the general public to carry out criminal sentencing. Putting released convicts names on a list for the public to watch out for is criminally stupid.

People convicted of these horrible crimes should be sentenced appropriately. Appropriately might include throwing away the key.

Creating a sex offender registry is a cheap, ineffective, political feel-good solution to a complicated and ugly problem. Very well said.

I have a friend who represents a kid who is looking at a lifetime of being a registered sex offender for the following:

The kid was 17, and sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend. Her parents didn't like him, so they called the cops and said that he had kidnapped her. The cops showed up at his place, and arrested him. When they talked to the girl, and realized he didn't kidnap her, they decided to threaten him with statutory rape (of which he was innocent under Texas law). Not knowing this, he offered to show the cops a videotape they had made of their quite consensual sex, to prove it wasn't rape.

So, the Harris Country Prosecutor decides that the kidnapping won't stick, the statutory rape won't stick, but we've got to convice him of something (this being Texas, after all), so they charge him with possession of child pornography. They offer a deal where he doesn't have to serve time, but has to plea to an offense that carries sex offender status, knowing that they are going to ruin this kid's life, just so they can pad their statistics.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

The kid was 17, and sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend. Her parents didn't like him, so they called the cops and said that he had kidnapped her. The cops showed up at his place, and arrested him. When they talked to the girl, and realized he didn't kidnap her, they decided to threaten him with statutory rape (of which he was innocent under Texas law). Not knowing this, he offered to show the cops a videotape they had made of their quite consensual sex, to prove it wasn't rape.

So, the Harris Country Prosecutor decides that the kidnapping won't stick, the statutory rape won't stick, but we've got to convice him of something (this being Texas, after all), so they charge him with possession of child pornography. They offer a deal where he doesn't have to serve time, but has to plea to an offense that carries sex offender status, knowing that they are going to ruin this kid's life, just so they can pad their statistics.

:mad: :mad:

That pisses me off.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Glory
Sex offenders are different from other criminals. The rate of recidivism is very high amongst sex offenders Is it? That's what I've heard, and that's what I read in "Dear Abby" and such, even to the point that the recidivism rate is 100%. But what ARE the actual numbers? How do we know what they are? Is there anything published anywhere?

I'm troubled by this. If the recidivism rate IS in fact 100%, isn't that a reasonable argument for lifetime incarceration? Either we're knowingly letting dangerous people out on the streets, or we're treating them as being more dangerous than violent criminals. Shouldn't someone who's been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon be treated more harshly than someone who flashed his genitalia to a teenager? I realize that a lot of sex crimes are FAR worse than that, but I'm just pointing up the possible terrible contradiction.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


And that is the point. Discretion should be given in sentencing for such an invasion of privacy.

Would you argue that there should be discretion as to whether someone gets thrown in jail for a particular crime as well?

What I'm getting at is whether you object to this aspect for some particular reason related to the list, or is it that you object to mandatory sentences per se? I would contend that having one's name on such a list would be less a "invasion of privacy" than being in prison, with the loss of privacy and freedoms inherent to that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
What I'm getting at is whether you object to this aspect for some particular reason related to the list, or is it that you object to mandatory sentences per se?

I am against mandatory sentences actually, but even apart from that, I'm mostly arguing against extremes. There isn't a mandatory sentence of being on the list for, say, three years...you're either on the list forever or you're not.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


I am against mandatory sentences actually, but even apart from that, I'm mostly arguing against extremes. There isn't a mandatory sentence of being on the list for, say, three years...you're either on the list forever or you're not.

I'd like to see some criteria for inclusion, and allow a judge to make the call as to whether the criteria are met. All "crimes of a sexual nature" is just too broad. Person stays on the list as long as criteria is met, allow a re-evaluation hearing every seven years or so. This is the kind of issue that screams for judical discretion, as one size fits all indeed does lead to extremes.

It hasn't been a good decade or two for the concept of judicial discretion though. I guess thats a whole different thread.

[Skeptical Greg]

Not entirely off the subject...

I heard a news story over the week-end about someone who stole this guys identity, moved out of state, had a run-in with the law and discovers the identity he stole, was of a sex offender.. Who should have registered in the community where he now lived..

I'll try to dig up some details, that tell the story a little better...



No point, but I thought it was mildly amusing in the " stupid criminal " department...

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek
And how are people "doing nothing"? There are a lot of groups trying to get this overturned.

and what has been accomplished so far by these groups. Every time I have heard of this law being challenged there is a deluge of protests over "leniency for child rapers". Society has spoken on this issue very loudly. Perhaps I should refer to it as the court of public oppinion.

Those people have absolutely no right to force that choice on me.

I agree. This is not the first time I have found myself at odds with society and I'll bet it isn't the first time for you either.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by Evolver


that's just frightening.

I couldn't agree more. I actually got a chill up my spine when I read it. I believe it speaks more to the ignorance of alot of people than it does to there willingness to be strip searched at airports. I find that people often do not know what they are agreeing to when they say this kind of thing. Why does it not occur to them ask questions? I don't know about anyone else but I would have asked which liberties I was being asked to give up before I answered. If that information I was not available how can there be any other reasonable answer but "NO!"?

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Not entirely off the subject...

I heard a news story over the week-end about someone who stole this guys identity, moved out of state, had a run-in with the law and discovers the identity he stole, was of a sex offender.. Who should have registered in the community where he now lived..

I'll try to dig up some details, that tell the story a little better...



No point, but I thought it was mildly amusing in the " stupid criminal " department...

That's poetic!

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Is it? That's what I've heard, and that's what I read in "Dear Abby" and such, even to the point that the recidivism rate is 100%. But what ARE the actual numbers? How do we know what they are? Is there anything published anywhere?

I'm troubled by this. If the recidivism rate IS in fact 100%, isn't that a reasonable argument for lifetime incarceration? Either we're knowingly letting dangerous people out on the streets, or we're treating them as being more dangerous than violent criminals. Shouldn't someone who's been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon be treated more harshly than someone who flashed his genitalia to a teenager? I realize that a lot of sex crimes are FAR worse than that, but I'm just pointing up the possible terrible contradiction.

Clearly, it depends on the crime in question and the reason for it. The ones who seem to be beyond help are the ones who serially molest children and ones who serially rape women and children. Some of these crimes involve further violence and some don't. I personally, think that flashers should be treated differently from child molestors. I don't know what the numbers are. I know what I read in the papers and magazines about the phenomena. So far, the articles say that the compulsion to rape does not go away with therapy or drugs. Does this apply to a kid who sleeps with his underage girlfriend or a guy who didn't take no for an answer on prom night? As a rule, probably not. Each case must be defined by its own attributes.

Glory

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek


And that is the point. Discretion should be given in sentencing for such an invasion of privacy.

As an aside, if you are convicted of a felony you cannot ever legally own a gun nor vote. Them's the laws and go along with the sentence. I am sure there are other things that follow a felon around forever.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
and what has been accomplished so far by these groups.

Irrelevant to your contention that we as a society have all agreed to this rule.

Every time I have heard of this law being challenged there is a deluge of protests over "leniency for child rapers".

Yes, and every time someone actually says that sick and dying people should be allowed to get the medicine their doctors say they need, even if that medicine is cannabis, there's a deluge of protests over "potheads."

Do we REALLY want such reactionary non-thinkers speaking for society and making the rules we all live by? Look at all of the people crying out for Creationism over "Godless" evolution!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
I couldn't agree more. I actually got a chill up my spine when I read it. I believe it speaks more to the ignorance of alot of people than it does to there willingness to be strip searched at airports. I find that people often do not know what they are agreeing to when they say this kind of thing. Why does it not occur to them ask questions? I don't know about anyone else but I would have asked which liberties I was being asked to give up before I answered. If that information I was not available how can there be any other reasonable answer but "NO!"?

Because people don't understand what rights and liberties really are, mostly thanks to government schools. Most people see them as an abstract concept that doesn't apply to them in their day-to-day life.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
As an aside, if you are convicted of a felony you cannot ever legally own a gun nor vote.

Well, I know that in NC at least, that's not the case. You can own a gun and vote as long as your sentence has been carried out and you are no longer under probation.

If such laws exist, I submit that they, like this child molester stuff, should be considered part of the sentencing and subject to the balances and reviews like any other sentence.

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek
Irrelevant to your contention that we as a society have all agreed to this rule.

I think we are having a semantic disagreement rather than a philosophical one. I feel that I can disagree with society and yet still count myself as part of it and still, on top of that, note that society has done something without my personal consent. If my use of the word society is causing the problem then I would appreciate your telling me what term would express the concept I am trying to get across. That being that the general populace or the majority of voters or what ever you want to call them has decided that the registry is the lesser of two evils.

Yes, and every time someone actually says that sick and dying people should be allowed to get the medicine their doctors say they need, even if that medicine is cannabis, there's a deluge of protests over "potheads."

Do we REALLY want such reactionary non-thinkers speaking for society and making the rules we all live by? Look at all of the people crying out for Creationism over "Godless" evolution!

I do not and I never said or intended to imply that I did. I cannot ignore the reality of what has happened, though. What I want is rarely what society wants yet I do not have the power to override society. I hope one day that society will reflect more of my views and I will continue to do what I can to make that happen. Until then though, society will continue to make choices with which I disagree.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, I know that in NC at least, that's not the case. You can own a gun and vote as long as your sentence has been carried out and you are no longer under probation.

If such laws exist, I submit that they, like this child molester stuff, should be considered part of the sentencing and subject to the balances and reviews like any other sentence.

Federal, felony convictions result in the loss of the right to vote in all states, counties, cities, and townships.

Glory

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Glory


Federal, felony convictions result in the loss of the right to vote in all states, counties, cities, and townships.

Glory I'm not as familiar with this as I should be, but the Federal government doesn't have the authority to tell states who may vote, so I don't think this is possible.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I'm not as familiar with this as I should be, but the Federal government doesn't have the authority to tell states who may vote, so I don't think this is possible.

The federal government can only tell the states what to do about voter eligibility if there is a violation of a voter specific constitutional provision.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
I think we are having a semantic disagreement rather than a philosophical one. I feel that I can disagree with society and yet still count myself as part of it and still, on top of that, note that society has done something without my personal consent. If my use of the word society is causing the problem then I would appreciate your telling me what term would express the concept I am trying to get across. That being that the general populace or the majority of voters or what ever you want to call them has decided that the registry is the lesser of two evils.

Decisions made by society are things like the workday being from 8-5 instead of 9-6. That is quite different from things imposed upon us by government at the behest of special interest groups.

I do not and I never said or intended to imply that I did. I cannot ignore the reality of what has happened, though. What I want is rarely what society wants yet I do not have the power to override society. I hope one day that society will reflect more of my views and I will continue to do what I can to make that happen. Until then though, society will continue to make choices with which I disagree.

Again, I would submit that there is a difference between society saying the workday should be 8-5 and government saying your children must be taught creationism and not evolution.

[nightwind]

I do not agree with Megan's law, and people who have served their time, should not be branded forever, with the assumption they will do it again. If that is the case then they should never be let go. I believe that there are just too many cases where people really do not need to be on the lists, and it stigmatizes them forever, and a lot of times for something they did not commit, because of the high possibility of false allegations in these cases.

I also wonder about the rate of recidivism. I believe it is just as high most likely for drug offenses, burglary, etc., although not sure.

The really bad guys, child rapist, killers, etc. will be locked up forever anyway. Surely they don't let them out, if they do then they should probably be monitored.

It is ridiculous to apply this to the 15yr old and 20 year old type of relationships or two minors, mutually consenting. In many countries this is not even illegal, and even in our own culture at one time was quite acceptable. In the case of LeTourneau, she should have been punished, but I believe probably more for destroying her own family, than fooling around with the boy/man. If the so called "kid" had not been doing Letourneau, he would have been doing other kids and getting them pregnant.

So in some of the really violent cases, I believe that the offenders should be locked up and the key thrown away. The other cases, the folks should serve their time, and be given a chance to be a normal productive citizen.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by nightwind
The really bad guys, child rapist, killers, etc. will be locked up forever anyway. Surely they don't let them out, Well, yes they do. In my ZIP code, there are currently 12 guys at large on the registry, excluding the ones currently locked up, and including two who've failed to re-register, whereabouts unknown.

What they did:
2 Forcible Sodomies
3 Aggravated Sexual Batteries (I'm guessing "aggravated" means he used a weapon)
1 Taking Indecent Liberties with Children
1 Indecent Liberties with Child by Custodian
1 Object Sexual Penetration (I don't think I want to know)
1 Attempted Rape
3 Rape

Several of them were convicted of their crimes more than ten years ago. One was convicted in 1986, one in 1985, one in 1983, and one in 1976 (before some of the people here were born, I'll betcha), and a few others in the 1980s.

Assuming that these guys haven't committed repeat crimes in that time, it makes me wonder how much truth there is to the old claim that "once a child molester, always a child molester." I don't deny that they may still get thrills from the idea of rape. But thoughts are not deeds, else I'd have a glove box full of speeding tickets.