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.
[It] is the supporters of ever-harsher laws who like to bandy about percentages, claiming that sex offenders should be treated as an especially worrisome class of criminals in part because they are especially likely to commit new offenses after they've served their sentences. Since the evidence suggests that is not true, surely it is relevant to say so. Questioning hyperbolic claims about recidivism hardly amounts to saying recidivism is "acceptable."
There also needs to be more focus on the type of supposed crime that was committed. The fact is that in certain states a guy who is one day past his 18th birthday has sex with a girl who is one days prior to her 16th birthday, then he is a felon and on the registry for life. The severity of the penalty is ridiculous and this calling this a crime is a stretch, and the chance of recidivism for this type crime is likely near zero.
There also needs to be more focus on the type of supposed crime that was committed. The fact is that in certain states a guy who is one day past his 18th birthday has sex with a girl who is one days prior to her 16th birthday, then he is a felon and on the registry for life. The severity of the penalty is ridiculous and this calling this a crime is a stretch, and the chance of recidivism for this type crime is likely near zero.
I agree we need to get some clarity to sex offender laws. We need to deliniate between a rapist who violently rapes a woman, a child preditor and a kid who happens to be barely over that age barrier who has a girlfriend just under.... and a dad who wants vengence. (not saying kids should be having sex, they shouldnt) but we dont distroy a kids life for making a poor choice that involves a willing partner.
having said that, rapists and molesters deserve utter annihilation….and to be left unprotected from society. Period.
It's good the see a couple rationale posts to start off as opposed to "sex offender" bad, throw them in jail.
To treat them all the same is bad policy. As already noted, the 19 year old caught with the 16 year old. There are no stats that show that he will continue to seek out 16 year olds.
Now the person who shows that he is continually seeking out underage victims as time goes by, that is indeed different. There are stats that show recidivism is too high to simply accept there.
There also needs to be more focus on the type of supposed crime that was committed. The fact is that in certain states a guy who is one day past his 18th birthday has sex with a girl who is one days prior to her 16th birthday, then he is a felon and on the registry for life. The severity of the penalty is ridiculous and this calling this a crime is a stretch, and the chance of recidivism for this type crime is likely near zero.
The severity of the penalties for most sex crimes is wildly out of proportion. In California a man was sentenced to 15-to-life for sucking on young boys' toes. Give me a break--there are bigger problems in the world (especially California) than the toe bandit!
The severity of the penalties for most sex crimes is wildly out of proportion. In California a man was sentenced to 15-to-life for sucking on young boys' toes. Give me a break--there are bigger problems in the world (especially California) than the toe bandit!
That would depend on whether or not it was his only arrest. If it was the first time, I might agree. 3rd time, it is justifiable
Sex offender laws don't make a lot of sense. Putting a serial rapists/pedos on a list along with people who might have gotten drunk and mooned some one (or urinating in public), or kids where one crosses a legal age barrier that was fine the day before (like some one turning 18 and the other is still 16)...is completely insane.
Doubly so for treating sex offenders like criminals for the rest of their lives, where non-sexual crimes (no matter how bad) don't have to register.
I don't think that would be justifiable on his 50th arrest.
The specifics would be needed to determine that IMO. If he had been arrested for molesting children a couple times and was only caught this time sucking on toes, I have no problem putting him away.
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.
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.
