Wow, is it time to move or time to stay?

[Click Ticker]

There are those that feel homosexuality is sick and should be a sexual offense. Perhaps we should lock homosexuals up until they are "Cured". Same goes for interracial marriages etc.

You're really reaching here. Your last comments have nothing to do with any points that anyone has brought up.

As far as what would you do differently as a parent? We all had neighborhood friends growing up. We used to go to their houses for dinner or play or sleepovers. Some of those kids had indoor toys that we didn't have so we would have no problem going in their house to play with them. Our parents would see their parents out mowing the lawn or going for walks. They'd talk and get to know eachother. Really nice people. Our parents would have no problem with us playing inside the neighbors house with the neighbors kids.

Of course there was no sex offender registry and we had no idea how trustworthy the neighbors were. We just trusted because they seemed nice.

Now - with the sex offender registry - no matter how nice that neighbor who gives out the best treats at holloween seems - we know that the kids are never ever to go over there. It serves a purpose.

[astromark]

I would think you are well educated people. Given that we all feel a repulsion to this sort of criminal but, there needs to be a reasoned approach to this very public naming and shaming of these people. The law has dealt to these deviates and even the heinous criminal can and does change. Care should be used as often the numbers are distorted to say whatever the small pressure group wants you to see.
This is a highly emotive subject and we should learn from our past... Who are we to impose our principals on others. The right and balanced decency of the young should be upper most in our thoughts. I agree with 'tofu'

[Fazor]

I agree with 'tofu'. Ugh, but tofu doesn't agree with me . Oh, I thought that was just a random culinary statement. Nevermind.

Anyway, like I said this is a very complex issue. I think it should be obvious that I'm not totally against laws such as Megan's Law requiring the registering and tracking of convicted offenders. But that doesn't mean I think it's the best solution.

It's safe to also say that doing nothing in the insterest of "protecting the convicted" is not something I'm in favor of either.

But I love seeing these conversations in a place like BAUT, because as Astromark said I regard (at least most of us ) as very inteligent people. It is important that issues like these be discussed and debated.

[boppa]

an interesting debate....
I'm all for `sealed' lists being maintained by the police/government after a person has done their time- but imho these public lists actually work against the public good!!!

my reasoning for this viewpoint is as follows
Once a person has done their time/been punished their slate is now `clean'- ie they are now back to the persumption of innocent until proven guilty

these public lists reverse that presumtion that has been the basis of both the U.S.A and Australia(where I am) legal systems to guilty until proven innocent.

Also I personally think that once these public lists are used, any chance that they were actually rehabilitated whilst serving their sentence is quite quickly eroded by constant harrasement by `well meaning' public members that actively stalk people registered on the list.
Add to that often these people find it hard to even get a job, make new friends etc etc and soon the pressure could possibly build to the point where they retaliate- bringing on a self perpetuating cycle of `see they are dangerous so should be on the list', where being on the list was the cause of the retaliation in the first place!

so to reiterate I'm fully in favour of the lists being maintained- just not available to the general public.

[CodeSlinger]

I think there are a few basic questions that need to be settled first. Some posters seem to view sexual deviancy as primarily a criminal act like theft, so they come to the conclusion that after someone does X number of years in prison the slate should be wiped clean. Others view it as primarily a mental illness, which some believe can be "cured" while others do not seem to share the same optimism. Obviously this will lead to other conclusions about how sexual deviants should be treated/punished. Without enough evidence to decide exactly what sexual deviancy is (crime/curable illness/incurable illness), it seems that any discussion on appropriate treatment/punishment will always have people starting from different premises, and therefore always talking past each other. Perhaps the reality is that sexual deviancy can be all 3, with different instances falling into different categories, so there is no one single solution that can fit all cases.

[farmerjumperdon]

If you do the crime, do the time. But when the time is up, it's up and you shouldn't continue to be harrassed by society.

Then you will be happy to have them all move in as neighbors?

Committing a violent crime against fellow humans is not like keeping a library book out late, where you pay the fine and all is forgiven. For certain levels of crime, you can be, and should be, mark and identified for life. The evidence warrants it. I do not see where doing the time automatically earns complete forgiveness and gives a person a clean slate.

Freedom is not a natural right. Nature does not give rights, societies do. Freedom is given by fellow humans thru a social contract (including written laws) and can be taken away by fellow humans.

[Fazor]

Once a person has done their time/been punished their slate is now `clean'- ie they are now back to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty
That's basically the main argument against the public lists Boppa. The thing is, the "innocent until proven guilty" is a court doctrine. There's no rule governing how I look at other people.

Say you see a homeless man on the street corner, and recall that 10 years ago he slaughtered the family down the street, but is now free on a technicality. Would you invite him into your home and show him where you keep the cooking knifes?

Assuming that someone who committed a criminal act might commit the act again is in the interest of self preservation. Might they have been "rehabilitated"? Sure. Might they be the same person they were to begin with? Yeah. Which one is worse for you if you are wrong?

If you'd rather put your safety and your families safety second, and put the "fairness" of someone else first, go right ahead. I however am not willing to do that.

Lastly, your argument is based on "rehabilitation". But there's good arguments on the side that many of these offenders cannot ever be rehabilitated.

[Fazor]

Perhaps the reality is that sexual deviancy can be all 3, with different instances falling into different categories, so there is no one single solution that can fit all cases.

I think this is an important realization, and I would totally agree with having different categories of sex crimes, with inclusion on the registry list limited to only certian types of crimes/criminals.

The registration requirement could be something that is mandated on a case-by-case basis at sentencing, and doesn't have to be a "everything that's x type of crime" decision. If the judge and/or jury feel the type of deviance is a threat to others in the future, then add it to the sentencing.

The only real problem I see with this is liability. Judges may be afraid that if they don't mandate that an offender be on the list, and then the person re-offends, that they will come under fire for their first decision. That's the biggest obstical I see with this type of treatment, IMHO.

[farmerjumperdon]

Once a person has done their time/been punished their slate is now `clean'- ie they are now back to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty
That's basically the main argument against the public lists Boppa. The thing is, the "innocent until proven guilty" is a court doctrine. There's no rule governing how I look at other people.

I think "innocent until proven guilty" gets used as a catch phrase more than as a statement of principle. Once proven guilty and once the sentence is served, the criminal is . . . . forever guilty of what they did. Their status does not change to not guilty after they serve the sentence. This is not meant to be a semantics game, but I think there is a distinction on the one hand between being presumed innocent as a status in court for a specific act for which charges have been brought, and on the other hand being presumed to not be predisposed to repeat the same crime for which guilt has already been established.

So yes, in the due process of investigating and prosecuting a specific crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. In the process of using common sense to provide a safe environment for decent humans, I will not pretend that a guilty party is not more likely to repeat - especially when the consequences of that pretense can be so severe.

[boppa]

Once a person has done their time/been punished their slate is now `clean'- ie they are now back to the persumption of innocent until proven guilty
That's basically the main argument against the public lists Boppa. The thing is, the "innocent until proven guilty" is a court. There's no rule governing how I look at other people.

Say you see a homeless man on the street corner, and recall that 10 years ago he slaughtered the family down the street, but is now free on a technicality. Would you invite him into your home and show him where you keep the cooking knifes?

Assuming that someone who committed a criminal act might commit the act again is in the interest of self preservation. Might they have been "rehabilitated"? Sure. Might they be the same person they were to begin with? Yeah. Which one is worse for you if you are wrong?

If you'd rather put your safety and your families saftey second, and put the "fairness" of someone else first, go right ahead. I however am not willing to do that.

Lastly, your argument is based on "rehabilitation". But there's good arguments on the side that many of these offenders cannot ever be rehabilitated.

first its boPpa not boopa ;-)

I was at great pains to say that they would still be listed and `hopefully' monitored by the appropriate people ie the police
however I personally feel that the public `naming and shaming' done by these lists causes more problems than they solve
The almost complete social alienation may and probably would end up causing them to `snap' with further possibly quite dire concequences.

http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html makes for some interesting reading
from above

A survey of 135 sex offenders in Florida revealed that housing restrictions increased isolation, created financial and emotional stress, and led to decreased stability for sex offenders. Respondents also indicated that they did not perceive residence restrictions as helpful in risk management, and in fact, reported that such restrictions may inadvertently increase triggers for reoffense (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a).

re `But there's good arguments on the side that many of these offenders cannot ever be rehabilitated.'

statistically sophisticated studies with extremely large combined samples have found that contemporary cognitive-behavioral treatment does help to reduce rates of sexual reoffending by as much as 40% (Hanson, Gordon, Harris, Marques, Murphy, Quinsey, & Seto, 2002)

time for bed here btw, ill pop back in tomorrow

[Fazor]

Yeah I saw I mistyped your handle, but it's fixed. sorry.

A survey of 135 sex offenders in Florida revealed that housing restrictions increased isolation, created financial and emotional stress, and led to decreased stability for sex offenders. Respondents also indicated that they did not perceive residence restrictions as helpful in risk management, and in fact, reported that such restrictions may inadvertently increase triggers for reoffense (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a).

Well, that's a survey, yes. But how much stock you want to put in the answers is up to you. They were basically asking the sex offenders if they like the punishment. How do you expect them to answer that question?

statistically sophisticated studies with extremely large combined samples have found that contemporary cognitive-behavioral treatment does help to reduce rates of sexual reoffending by as much as 40% (Hanson, Gordon, Harris, Marques, Murphy, Quinsey, & Seto, 2002)

So not even half of the reoffenders are stopped by these programs. That only helps strengthen my viewpoint. Additionally, you have to be carefull with these statistics. How many have not been caught reoffending? How many might not have yet, but will in the future?

What it comes down to is either you're going to be putting the (potential) victims at risk at the cost of privacy for the convicted, or you will be putting the saftey of the victim before the privacy of the convicted. I prefer the later.

As far as your idea that law enforcement instead of general public should monitor these offenders; again, that's fine and good in theory. Did you look at that list that Big Don posted in the OP of the offenders in his area alone? Do you really think police can even come close to monitoring these people enough to know that your children aren't arround them at any time? Police DO monitor these offenders. But there's only so much they can do, logistically. Should they be able to enter a convicted offender's house at any time to check and make sure there's no children or women being sexually assaulted? That's a much bigger invasion of privacy than Megan's Law.

There's a lot that needs to be taken into account.

[boppa]

just popping in on my way to work...

some of the less desirable effects of Megans Law, has been where the offender is related to the victim, revealing the offenders name has `outed' the name of the victim, resulting in more suffering for the victims

In Virginia, these laws have had an impact on victims and the families of convicted

sex offenders. In one case, the wife and family (including the daughter who was also

the victim) were harassed when the registry went on the Internet and their address

was posted, even though the offender was sentenced to prison where he will remain

incarcerated for some time. Despite the offender being in prison, his family's

address was posted on the Internet as the address of a convicted sex offender (O'Brien, 1999)

edit to add source
http://www.appa-net.org/resources/pu...itingmegan.pdf

re the dropping of the reoffending rate is your contention that every single person on the list will reoffend? If not, what is the reoffending rate in the first place? (hint it was in a referenced link)

Considering that according to US Justice department figures it varies between 14 and 25%, a 40% reduction reduces that figure down to between 6% to 12% reoffending rate

That means between 88% up to 94% of people on the list- that do not reoffend- still receive the same stigmarta (and the same destruction of privacy and often property!)

Rather than be allowed to rebuild their lives and becoming contributing members of society again, these people are becoming the `lepers' of modern society- condemmed to wandering the streets calling out`unclean, unclean'
[hey aren't I allowed to use an emotional arguement just once like everyone else ;-)...instead of relying on referenced links and studies.]
[hmm I am on BAUT right? referenced links and studies are bad????] :-O

[Fazor]

some of the less desirable effects of Megans Law, has been where the offender is related to the victim, revealing the offenders name has `outed' the name of the victim, resulting in more suffering for the victims
(rare nighttime post from home, you should feel special)

Well, these are the offenders that I would have no problem leaving off the registry. As I've stated throughout this thread, Megan's Law isn't perfect. But it certianly has utility if used correctly. This kinda ties in to the "Stupid Criminal Prosecution" thread, as I hate the hard-line no-exceptions nature of this law. Some common sense in who is a threat to the general public and who is not would be a good step. But don't do away with the registry alltogether.

[RalofTyr]

What's funny about registries, is that they are voluntary. I personally know two people that should be registered that live in my area (Some of my friend's fathers who live in the area), that are not registered.

Now - with the sex offender registry - no matter how nice that neighbor who gives out the best treats at holloween seems - we know that the kids are never ever to go over there. It serves a purpose.

Yeah because a guy that urinated in public shouldn't be around children.

[Doodler]

Freedom is not a natural right. Nature does not give rights, societies do. Freedom is given by fellow humans thru a social contract (including written laws) and can be taken away by fellow humans.

Dude, you just killed America, congratulations. You may now wipe your backside with the Constitution.

Did they not teach you about "inalienable rights" in civics?

[RalofTyr]

Philosophically, Famerjumperdon has a point. We are not truely free. All societies, regardless of their government, does restrict certain freedoms and has its taboos, however, on the flip side, we are truely free because we can choose to leave that society. The 46 year old NAMBLA member can take his fourteen year old lover to the mountains and live isolated, if they choose to. However, there are consequences to actions, which are the results of freedom.

This is more just food for throught. Carry on.

[Doodler]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20514201/

Ironically perfect timing for this story.

[Neverfly]

Fromm Doodlers link:

Prosecutors reduced the charges from sex crimes that could have branded Rich a sex offender for life.

So it seems that the prosecuters understood he was a 17 year old idiot who was ticked and bitter over a break up.

30 days in the pokey.

[Captain Kidd]

Hmm, Tennessee's list also features an interactive map. Kinda unnerving to see all those red dots.

I'm of split thought on the registry. The whole, "they've served their time, why punish them further" versus the, at least apparent, higher chance of a repeat offense. But I lean more toward for it than against it.

Edit: hmm we have a meth offender registry too it appears.

[Doodler]

Hmm, Tennessee's list also features an interactive map. Kinda unnerving to see all those red dots.

I'm of split thought on the registry. The whole, "they've served their time, why punish them further" versus the, at least apparent, higher chance of a repeat offense. But I lean more toward for it than against it.

Edit: hmm we have a meth offender registry too it appears.

Heh, in a few more years, we'll probably be chipping ex-cons. WOn't that be fun? Push a button on your handy dandy GPS tracker and every ex-con in a one mile radius is located for your convenience.

[farmerjumperdon]

Dude, you just killed America, congratulations. You may now wipe your backside with the Constitution.

Did they not teach you about "inalienable rights" in civics?

Constitution, social contract, one and the same. Humans construct rules by which they agree to live together. Whether they are acted out cultural norms or codified laws of the state, they do not emanate from nature. I'm not sure what inalienable rights means exactly, but in my book rights are given and taken away by society.

If inalienable rights means a right that can not be taken away; then I say such a thing does not exist. We take away rights all the time. We take away freedoms, heck we even take away life itself. If you break the rules the group has agreed to live by, then you can have your rights taken away - even those inalienable ones, even your right to live.

[Fazor]

What you anti-registry'ers seem to be ignoring is the fact that we have said that yes, some discrimination should be used when deciding who constitutes as a registerable offender and who doesn't. I have yet to see any of us say, "No, the 16 year old charged with sex with a minor SHOULD be registered". We all agreed that this shouldn't be, so why do you keep using these as an example?

What you all seem to have a problem with is using someone's past history as a predictor of future behavior. You act like that's some horrid, anti-constitutional thing to do. But we do it all the time. Why do you think your insurance rates go up after you get a ticket or have an accident? Why do you think they use credit history when buying a car, house, cell phone, etc.? They don't check your employment history when you apply for a job just so they can laugh that you spent 10 years flipping burgers.

If you caught your best friend sleeping with your wife, would you really be okay with him continuing to visit her every afternoon while you're at work? Just because they cheated once, you should be fine with them haning out. After all, according to your rules you're inhuman if you hold that against him. They've learned their lesson, and should be assumed that they have changed.

I'm sorry, but you're anti-Megan's Laws rhetoric just strikes me as rediculously idealistic.

[Doodler]

What you anti-registry'ers seem to be ignoring is the fact that we have said that yes, some discrimination should be used when deciding who constitutes as a registerable offender and who doesn't. I have yet to see any of us say, "No, the 16 year old charged with sex with a minor SHOULD be registered". We all agreed that this shouldn't be, so why do you keep using these as an example?

Because kids that young are going on the registry for exactly that. A few cases will find a DA willing to plea down the charges to avoid it, but they're becoming rarer as parents become more paranoid.

[Fazor]

Because kids that young are going on the registry for exactly that. A few cases will find a DA willing to plea down the charges to avoid it, but they're becoming rarer as parents become more paranoid.

I know they are, and we've all agreed that that part of the system should be fixed. But just because there's a flaw... a particularly fixable flaw at that... that doesn't mean you should just junk the whole system.

[weatherc]

Because kids that young are going on the registry for exactly that.

Which I have serious problems with. I think even those of us arguing for the registry have problems with that scenario.

Ideally, I think the registry should only include offenders that have been found guilty of sexually abusing children from multiple households. Why? This will keep the people accused during a bad divorce of molesting the children from appearing on the list. This will keep first-time offenders off the list. This would only give information about those that can be established to be predators (that is, repeat offenders).

While the Constitution establishes that everyone starts out equal (hence the inalienable rights), our actions determine whether we get to keep those rights. The Constitution clearly states in the 5th Amendment that life, liberty, and property can be taken from a citizen, as long as due process of law is followed. If someone has been found guilty of sexually abusing children by a jury, and is then sentenced by a judge, and part of the punishment is that the convicted person is put on the registry, then this follows due process, and I fail to see how this is an abuse of the Constitution in any way, shape or form. In fact, if this were a Constitutional issue, it would have been knocked down by the Supreme Court before being enacted.

[Michael Noonan]

I know they are, and we've all agreed that that part of the system should be fixed. But just because there's a flaw... a particularly fixable flaw at that... that doesn't mean you should just junk the whole system.

I quite agree, a system is building on a foundation, it can be modified and corrected. I prefer organised freedom.

When a system is in place updates and corrections can be made. A good system takes into account 'degrees of freedom'.

Freedom for me is that everyone gets to start a race fairly. Those who choose to run the wrong way are disqualified, it is still freedom. Freedom does not mean everyone finishes at the same time otherwise freedom would not reward those who try harder. Freedom needs rules like the first to the finish line should not be allowed grab it to prevent everyone else from getting to the finishing line.

Freedom with the right fair guidelines is freedom and worth fighting for; freedom without guidelines is anarchy and is the price of apathy. If rights are fought for successfully then some animals do become more equal than others later in the race; meaning they are running on ahead. They were all equally equal in the beginning. Otherwise why promote freedom as a value system to 'aspire to'. Freedom is an incredible system to aspire to.

So convicted felons have the freedom to engage legal representation to ensure they are more equal than they would have been through paid representation. Communities paying taxes that don't demand legislation to ensure their safety and are unwilling to pay for that representation through apathy will have these ex-offenders in their community. They have the freedom to seek communities without these persons.

Freedom is far from free and interestingly due to majority apathy it favours those with the most to gain as well as those with the most to loose.