U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2012, 09:13 AM
 
2,031 posts, read 2,303,114 times
Reputation: 1486

Advertisements

I have always had a bit of a problem with publicizing where sex offenders live by warning people they are moving into their neighborhood. Surely, some of these people are beyond help (in which case I don't understand why they're being freed), but for those who want to get on with their lives, doesn't this practice basically make that improbable?

If a person has served their time in prison, haven't they then paid their "debt to society"?

Why are sex offenders singled out? Why not drug dealers, attempted murderers, and drunk drivers?


MODERATOR NOTE: This is part 2 of an earlier thread. There are some redirects to the old thread.

Last edited by Oldhag1; 03-23-2015 at 09:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2015, 01:34 AM
 
17 posts, read 22,918 times
Reputation: 23
older thread:
According to the United States fbi statistis more than 90+% of sex offenders will not reoffend.
My figures for the 80% came from a Missouri facts sheets from state LEA it later turned out to be out landish and removed from.the LEA sex offender official site..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 02:07 AM
 
854 posts, read 1,035,871 times
Reputation: 949
I find the return to public shaming in general unsettling. It happens on the Internet though. I don't feel like child bullies should be openly threatened and taunted online by adults. We might as well just bring back the stocks and tarring and feathering, there's no difference really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,555 posts, read 3,066,602 times
Reputation: 3791
Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee View Post
Yes, and I can see your point...however, we do have a huge breakdown of the justice sytem, that is for certain....you cannot believe how many times our officers re arrest people. It is a waste of time, a great waste of money and a disgrace to our society.

Our prisons are so full, they let murders go simply for that reason.....however, you have the case of the kid, who shot someone, they did time, and they are older and sorry for their crime and would never do it again....however, that to is few and far between....but there are cases in which they do rehabilitate.

Sex offenders do not....and you will have people come into this forum and state that they do...but very very very few cases can be rehabilitated. Not to mention, again, the pain any victim from any crime goes thru, possibly for the rest of their living days
Define sex offender? While it's true that there is no evidence to suggest that pedophiles can stop being pedophiles (though there's apparently an extremely expensive drug that has had good results at suppressing sexual desire toward prepubescent children), there is a massive amount of evidence that shows pedophiles can not be rapists. Which is fine by me. Pedophilia, while rather weird, is not a problem if they don't molest children. Just like not every straight man rapes every woman he sees; not every pedophile will rape every child he sees.

I know this to be true because child molesters have a recidivism rate of about 2-3%, which is really good news. That means repeat offenders are rare. And while some have numerous victims, many only have one.

Let's use an example: Michael Jackson.
Allegedly, he molested a young boy (let's just assume he did). It sounds like all he did was get a bit handsy. That's wrong, but is it fair to say that it makes Jackson pure evil? I don't think so. If he had done it, and since he wasn't convicted we can't say for sure that he did, he should own up to it and commit to not doing it ever again, like the other 97% of child molesters do.

But what about other sex offenders? Statutory rape? child porn views? Child porn makers? Public urination? Indecent exposure? Rape? Battery? Etc...

Are we really going to treat ALL of these cases as exactly the same? That's honestly a terrible idea. The sad thing is, any suggestion that we should reevaluated sex offender laws contradicts the popular idea of 'tough on crime.' It's unfortunate that we're not being 'smart on crime' instead. We'd likely see better results.

I am 100% against a public registry. A police registry would make sense. That way they can be find jobs and houses without being bothered. This will help them have a normal life, which will keep the dangerous ones from reoffend (and the other ones... who cares; take a leak in public 1,000 times; doesn't bother me, even if it is gross).

Quote:
Originally Posted by snofarmer View Post
Then they shouldn't have done the crime.
IF is was "hardly" an "offense " or if it didn't hurt anyone for life then they wouldn't have been found guilty of the CRIME.
Umm... actually, people are convicted on ridiculous crimes all the time. At one point in time, it was a criminal offense to be an Indian in Iowa. You can say that was the past, but the justice system is still broken. There are guys who serve 8 years for possession of pot, while the average prison sentence for murder is generally around 5 years. 'Hardly an offense' can still be true and end up getting a ridiculously harsh sentence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by snofarmer View Post
And we don't post a list of names.
WE show their pic with their name and the area/address that they are living at on the local news.

Does that list protect anyone, sure it does, It protects people who feel variable or have members of their family that that predator likes to attack.
If I or any parent knows where the predator lives than can then make wise decisions as where to live .
How does that list protect anyone? You know where they live? So what? They can leave their house and break into yours if they really wanted to. I don't know how people have convinced themselves that a public registry is saving lives; if someone wants to reoffend, they will do it even if they're on a special list. Luckily, sex offenders are the least likely group to reoffend.

And it actually harms the offenders. Many can't find jobs or homes. This creates a lack of stability which will make them more likely to reoffend. They're are hated by their community, no matter what the circumstances. People don't bother to check what they did or get more information on what they did; they just see the red dot and their picture and assume 'child molester.' It's sad how... well, stupid Americans are. The list does more harm than good if you ask me. If they end up homeless because know one will let them be, how do you intend to keep tabs on them? If they are dangerous, and they become homeless, the ever so necessary registry has actually just created a very dangerous person who cannot be easily tracked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffpv View Post
I have always had a bit of a problem with publicizing where sex offenders live by warning people they are moving into their neighborhood. Surely, some of these people are beyond help (in which case I don't understand why they're being freed), but for those who want to get on with their lives, doesn't this practice basically make that improbable?

If a person has served their time in prison, haven't they then paid their "debt to society"?

Why are sex offenders singled out? Why not drug dealers, attempted murderers, and drunk drivers?
It's an emotional issue. That's it.

We base all sex offender cases off of the high profile cases. I'm sure you're familiar with Megan's law, which was made as a reaction to a convicted rapist who kidnapped, raped, and killed a young girl name Megan. A terribly tragedy that absolutely needed to be addressed. The problem: things like that weren't common. The sex offender registry has convinced us that they are.

This means the registry has two contradicting effects. It creates both a sense of false security and a sense of false threat. People will assume they're safe if those convicted of a sex crime (a ludicrously broad term) are on a public list, when in realty, that makes no sense. Some people will offend again (most won't), and putting them on a list will no stop them, no matter how much you want to believe it will. And the false sense of danger comes from knowing that sex offenders are so abundant. The problem with this is that 'sex offender' can mean nothing. Yes, I'd like to know if a man convicted of kidnapping and raping multiple children lived near me. But I don't need to know every person who's crime might have involved his or hers genitals. Statistically speaking, the dude who got charged with indecent exposure or distribution of child pornography ( have one of those only a mile away) is significantly less likely to harm your child. Really, you should be more concerned about your kids Sunday school teacher or his uncle at the next family reunion. Sex abuse is more likely to occur by someone you know, not someone else. A public registry won't help with that. After all, most people convicted of a sex crime are first time offenders. They are not likely to reoffend, so it does beg the question, why have the registry?

And the answer is uninformed activists made really strong emotional points without thinking about the big picture and the government was on board with that because it meant more control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 09:35 AM
Status: "Finally Done With C-D BYE BYE" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,947 posts, read 21,473,086 times
Reputation: 15430
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty View Post
Define sex offender? While it's true that there is no evidence to suggest that pedophiles can stop being pedophiles (though there's apparently an extremely expensive drug that has had good results at suppressing sexual desire toward prepubescent children), there is a massive amount of evidence that shows pedophiles can not be rapists. Which is fine by me. Pedophilia, while rather weird, is not a problem if they don't molest children. Just like not every straight man rapes every woman he sees; not every pedophile will rape every child he sees.

I know this to be true because child molesters have a recidivism rate of about 2-3%, which is really good news. That means repeat offenders are rare. And while some have numerous victims, many only have one.

Let's use an example: Michael Jackson.
Allegedly, he molested a young boy (let's just assume he did). It sounds like all he did was get a bit handsy. That's wrong, but is it fair to say that it makes Jackson pure evil? I don't think so. If he had done it, and since he wasn't convicted we can't say for sure that he did, he should own up to it and commit to not doing it ever again, like the other 97% of child molesters do.

But what about other sex offenders? Statutory rape? child porn views? Child porn makers? Public urination? Indecent exposure? Rape? Battery? Etc...

Are we really going to treat ALL of these cases as exactly the same? That's honestly a terrible idea. The sad thing is, any suggestion that we should reevaluated sex offender laws contradicts the popular idea of 'tough on crime.' It's unfortunate that we're not being 'smart on crime' instead. We'd likely see better results.

I am 100% against a public registry. A police registry would make sense. That way they can be find jobs and houses without being bothered. This will help them have a normal life, which will keep the dangerous ones from reoffend (and the other ones... who cares; take a leak in public 1,000 times; doesn't bother me, even if it is gross).



Umm... actually, people are convicted on ridiculous crimes all the time. At one point in time, it was a criminal offense to be an Indian in Iowa. You can say that was the past, but the justice system is still broken. There are guys who serve 8 years for possession of pot, while the average prison sentence for murder is generally around 5 years. 'Hardly an offense' can still be true and end up getting a ridiculously harsh sentence.




How does that list protect anyone? You know where they live? So what? They can leave their house and break into yours if they really wanted to. I don't know how people have convinced themselves that a public registry is saving lives; if someone wants to reoffend, they will do it even if they're on a special list. Luckily, sex offenders are the least likely group to reoffend.

And it actually harms the offenders. Many can't find jobs or homes. This creates a lack of stability which will make them more likely to reoffend. They're are hated by their community, no matter what the circumstances. People don't bother to check what they did or get more information on what they did; they just see the red dot and their picture and assume 'child molester.' It's sad how... well, stupid Americans are. The list does more harm than good if you ask me. If they end up homeless because know one will let them be, how do you intend to keep tabs on them? If they are dangerous, and they become homeless, the ever so necessary registry has actually just created a very dangerous person who cannot be easily tracked.



It's an emotional issue. That's it.

We base all sex offender cases off of the high profile cases. I'm sure you're familiar with Megan's law, which was made as a reaction to a convicted rapist who kidnapped, raped, and killed a young girl name Megan. A terribly tragedy that absolutely needed to be addressed. The problem: things like that weren't common. The sex offender registry has convinced us that they are.

This means the registry has two contradicting effects. It creates both a sense of false security and a sense of false threat. People will assume they're safe if those convicted of a sex crime (a ludicrously broad term) are on a public list, when in realty, that makes no sense. Some people will offend again (most won't), and putting them on a list will no stop them, no matter how much you want to believe it will. And the false sense of danger comes from knowing that sex offenders are so abundant. The problem with this is that 'sex offender' can mean nothing. Yes, I'd like to know if a man convicted of kidnapping and raping multiple children lived near me. But I don't need to know every person who's crime might have involved his or hers genitals. Statistically speaking, the dude who got charged with indecent exposure or distribution of child pornography ( have one of those only a mile away) is significantly less likely to harm your child. Really, you should be more concerned about your kids Sunday school teacher or his uncle at the next family reunion. Sex abuse is more likely to occur by someone you know, not someone else. A public registry won't help with that. After all, most people convicted of a sex crime are first time offenders. They are not likely to reoffend, so it does beg the question, why have the registry?

And the answer is uninformed activists made really strong emotional points without thinking about the big picture and the government was on board with that because it meant more control.
Don't forget there's money to be made off of all of this, elections to be won,power to be had and all it takes is to create a group of "boogymen/women" that can't fight back like all the other groups that have been demonized over the ages. Maybe it all started with Witches?

People love/need/must have someone to hate, someone to point to thinking "he/she is the evil baaaddd person".
Maybe to feel superior or justify themselves?

Last edited by Oldhag1; 03-23-2015 at 12:57 AM.. Reason: Removed icons
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,555 posts, read 3,066,602 times
Reputation: 3791
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
But, 20 years ago when he was 19, he was having sex with a 14 year old. A 14 year old.
They got married. We view it as wrong because we assume the 'victim' was traumatized. That's very clearly not the case here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swtmarie View Post
So I guess you are opposed to the "Amber Alert" system too? I'm curious if you even have children.

As for trading in our freedom...We are not, and will never be, completely "free". Do we have more rights and privileges than other countries--yes; but we also have a government that makes laws and guidelines we MUST live by so that we have some kind of order, otherwise we would be an uncivilized country if people were completely "free" to do whatever they want. It cracks me up when people whine about the government having too much power but then when something goes awry they blame the government for not taking the necessary measures to prevent it.
Amber Alert reports active crimes. The sex offender registry reports crimes that have already been dealt with an punished. They are not even remotely the same.

And we can be 'completely' free. How dare you suggest that we can't. And we do not have more rights than other countries. Canada's privacy laws are far superior to ours, where the government can basically do whatever they want and say 'it's so the terrorists won't win.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swtmarie View Post
So now parents are stupid? Why because they want extra safety measures in addition to watching over their kids themselves? You are stupid to assume that parents ONLY check sex registries and don't take care of their children as well. I will use any means possible, myself and government programs included, to protect my children. I would rather live in a town that maybe has a couple registered sex-offenders than a town that maybe has 80 because I was responsible enough to take 5 minutes and check an online registry; even if you think it doesn't make a difference...I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to my children. Funny, you never answered if you had any.
Yes, parents are stupid now. Living near a sex offender does not mean you are in danger. There's a 10% chance that someone the sex offender knows will be in danger. Statistically, if your child simply doesn't interact with said sex offender, they are safe. And if people were smart, and that's how they understood the sex offender registry, it would be a great system. Unfortunately, people are incredibly stupid. They think a sex offender lives in the neighborhood and immediately are afraid for their child's safety. Doesn't matter what they did or how long ago it happens, they jump to conclusions. And yes, a parent that does this is a complete moron and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

If you want to keep your kid safe, watch them yourself. Teach them how to be smart. Having the government put people who committed some type of sex crime, anything from rape to accidentally showing a nipple near a public park, won't keep your kid safe. I'm sorry to tell you, but if someone wants to rape someone, they'll do it. Lucky for you and everyone else, most sex offenders (who are released from prison) do not reoffend. But zealots don't report that fact because fear mongering only works when you make BS statistics up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by biggunsmallbrains View Post
Probably due to the high recidivism rate and the fact that you are often dealing with societies most vulnerable people in children. If someone is going to commit such an abhorrent act then it is obviously not something that they will be able to stop so easily. It is a form of perverted addiction I suppose.
Recidivism rates for sex offenders (of all varieties) is usually around 12%, which is 30% lower than the average for all crimes put together. Murderers are the only class of criminal that is less likely to reoffend than sex offenders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StabbyAbby View Post
Sexual assault is extremely under-reported. It's naive to believe that rapists and molesters "learn the error of their ways" in prison and suddenly become model citizens.

A likely reason explaining why released rapists/molesters have a "lower" recidivism rate is because they learn from their first mistakes (getting caught) and they make sure that their victims don't report to law enforcement again.

Rapists enjoy invading, dominating and tormenting their victims. It's a pathological desire. I don't trust any of them. I don't care if they claim that they've "found God". It's all an act as far as I'm concerned.
The ones that are reported are usually enough to deter that person from doing it again. There are very few repeat offenders. Yes, sex abuse is underreported, and that's extremely unfortunate, but no intelligent person should believe that the registry in it's current state is helping. It's not. The rate of sex crimes has gone down since the registry was introduced, but so has every other crime. And sex crimes have no seen a more rapid decrease despite the added punishment. Recidivism rates are also no lower. In some cases, they're higher when then registrant can find a decent job or home in order to live a stable life.

People who want their child safe AND support the sex offender registry are ill informed. The registry is doing more harm than good and any unbiased research of the issue will confirm this (or not outwardly deny it; some say the registry had simply had no effect, which from an economic perspective still means it's a terrible idea).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 09:36 PM
 
2,739 posts, read 4,073,055 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffpv View Post
I have always had a bit of a problem with publicizing where sex offenders live by warning people they are moving into their neighborhood. Surely, some of these people are beyond help (in which case I don't understand why they're being freed), but for those who want to get on with their lives, doesn't this practice basically make that improbable?

If a person has served their time in prison, haven't they then paid their "debt to society"?

Why are sex offenders singled out? Why not drug dealers, attempted murderers, and drunk drivers?

People do pay extra attention to sex crimes. A crime is a crime. If you're out robbing people, beating people up, killing, stealing, that deserves more attention than somebody who is a peeping tom or grabbed somebody's butt, for example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,063 posts, read 1,724,371 times
Reputation: 1901
Quote:
Originally Posted by sex_offender View Post
older thread:
According to the United States fbi statistis more than 90+% of sex offenders will not reoffend.
My figures for the 80% came from a Missouri facts sheets from state LEA it later turned out to be out landish and removed from.the LEA sex offender official site..

I had read it was the opposite of the idea that most do not re offend . That sex offenders cannot stop offending. That they cannot ever change who they are attracted to. . And that is why people are afraid to live near to them.

Last edited by vanguardisle; 03-23-2015 at 08:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Glasgow Scotland
14,505 posts, read 11,481,746 times
Reputation: 20990
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
I had read it was the opposite of the idea that most do not re offend . That sex offenders cannot stop offending. That they cannot ever change who they are attracted to. . And that is why people are afraid to live near to them.
Of course they reoffend, maybe not all but most do , their attracted sexually to chldren and it doesnt go away.. and to compare this to other crimes is ludicrous.. touching and harming kids is the worst crime imaginable..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Cape Cod
9,792 posts, read 7,106,581 times
Reputation: 17906
There are levels to a sex offender that need ot be considered. Just as many have pointed out there is a difference in someone being seen and getting caught peeing in the bushes to a rapist pulling a woman into those bushes.

Rape is rape but there is a bit of a difference between being outright attacked, being drugged on a date, or having too much to drink and not realising what is going on.

Anyone that preys on children or the mentally challenged are the worst offenders and they should be dealt with severly. Pedophiles have the same urges toward a child as most men do when they see a pretty woman in a bikini. Pedophiles can't be changed they need ot rot in jail.
The judge and jury should decide the fate of the worst offenders and in some cases I would say bring back the public colonial stocks. Sex offenders need to know what they are doing is not OK and the punishment should fit the crime.

I think the public should know where they live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top