Starkess Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I know a guy who was charged with ten counts of possessing and distributing child pornography. He got three years probation, and a lifetime on the sex offenders list. I am very happy he will be on that list forever. Not all of these people go to prison, and I would much rather families with young kids know that a person attracted to young kids is living near them. So they could at least take precaution. You could use that argument for a list of any sort of crime, though. Wouldn't you want to know your new neighbor has a history of B&E? What about catching a ride from a coworker who has a previous vehicular manslaughter conviction? Or leaving your kids with a family friend who once was convicted of domestic violence (of a non-sexual sort)? People just use the reflexive horror against sex-related crimes to establish life-long punishments that, to my knowledge, haven't been shown to be effective at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 You're kind of supporting our point though. If these people are too dangerous to allow amongst the general public, then just say that and extend their jail time. I agree that in most cases probation is far too light for someone who abused a child. But putting them on a list of deviants and forcing them to go through bizarre, humiliating rituals is just weird. It is arguably cruel, and definitely unusual More then that, you force them into positions where they have no ability to actually live a life. There were places where the sex offenders lived under bridges because they were legally prohibited from being anywhere else based on the zoning laws. If you are gonna release people from prison, you need to allow them to reintegrate into society and actually be able to support themselves. If you don't think that's possible don't release them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 This certainly is something that requires a lot more thought for me. However, I am at least partially approaching this from the standpoint of the current system. I would fully support finding new ways to approach this type of crime. Starkness,It definitely is reflexive horror on my part. Sexual abuse/explotation of children will always bring out a strong response in me. However in the brief time I've researched the subject of redivicism in pedophilia it is definitely clear that the answer of how to deal with these people is complicated. But I'm happier knowing there is a list right now, as opposed to nothing, even if that eventually evolves into a better system without one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 See, that's the problem. The list doesn't tell you why they're on it. That sex offender living next to you? He could've molested a child. Or he could've gotten drunk and urinated in public. Or he could've had consensual sexual relations with his 16 year old girlfriend at the age of 18. Or he could've taken a nude photo of himself at age 15. Or he could've visited a prostitute at one point. There are far, far better ways to deal with it. Prison is meant to be about punishment as well as rehabilitation. Keeping the punishment going after you leave prison as well as denying rehabilitation strikes me as needlessly vindictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkess Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 See, that's the problem. The list doesn't tell you why they're on it. That sex offender living next to you? He could've molested a child. Or he could've gotten drunk and urinated in public. Or he could've had consensual sexual relations with his 16 year old girlfriend at the age of 18. Or he could've taken a nude photo of himself at age 15. Or he could've visited a prostitute at one point. And people know this, too, so it means that the public urination guys are treated like probably-pedophiles and the pedophiles try to tell everyone that they're just public urination guys and it's just a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 See, that's the problem. The list doesn't tell you why they're on it. That sex offender living next to you? He could've molested a child. Or he could've gotten drunk and urinated in public. Or he could've had consensual sexual relations with his 16 year old girlfriend at the age of 18. Or he could've taken a nude photo of himself at age 15. Or he could've visited a prostitute at one point. There are far, far better ways to deal with it. Prison is meant to be about punishment as well as rehabilitation. Keeping the punishment going after you leave prison as well as denying rehabilitation strikes me as needlessly vindictive. Not sure if every state is like mine but when you go on the sex offender registy it has three levels - level 3 are the really bad ones. It also states the exact charges that the offender is convicted of. I was curious so i went to one other state and they show the exact conviction. It would seem your concern about not differentiating between the pedophiles, the johns and the public urinators does not hold (at least in some states). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 See, that's the problem. The list doesn't tell you why they're on it. That sex offender living next to you? He could've molested a child. Or he could've gotten drunk and urinated in public. Or he could've had consensual sexual relations with his 16 year old girlfriend at the age of 18. Or he could've taken a nude photo of himself at age 15. Or he could've visited a prostitute at one point. There are far, far better ways to deal with it. Prison is meant to be about punishment as well as rehabilitation. Keeping the punishment going after you leave prison as well as denying rehabilitation strikes me as needlessly vindictive.The list in PA not only has the Tier level, but also lists the offenses when you click on a tab under there page.ETA: Looks like Zelticgar ninja'd me to this. I also wanted to mention that for in PA, for example, there might be no jail time, besides being unable to pay bail, for possessing and distributing child porn. It could simply be plea bargained down to probation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 More then that, you force them into positions where they have no ability to actually live a life. There were places where the sex offenders lived under bridges because they were legally prohibited from being anywhere else based on the zoning laws. If you are gonna release people from prison, you need to allow them to reintegrate into society and actually be able to support themselves. If you don't think that's possible don't release them. Yea, reintegration is a huge problem with many convicts. Just one part of the USA's terrible, terrible penal system. But I think the compulsory exclusion and humiliation element is somewhat unique to those on the sex offenders list. If they have to always have their face plastered on posters and go confessing their crimes to their neighbors, why not murderers? Why not thieves? This certainly is something that requires a lot more thought for me. However, I am at least partially approaching this from the standpoint of the current system. I would fully support finding new ways to approach this type of crime.Starkness,It definitely is reflexive horror on my part. Sexual abuse/explotation of children will always bring out a strong response in me. However in the brief time I've researched the subject of redivicism in pedophilia it is definitely clear that the answer of how to deal with these people is complicated. But I'm happier knowing there is a list right now, as opposed to nothing, even if that eventually evolves into a better system without one. Do you think someone deserves a shot at living a halfway-normal life once they've done their time? I could respect or even support the argument for harsher sentences in this case, but hounding these people to the point where they can barely scrape by after they've been released strikes me as perverse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Do you think someone deserves a shot at living a halfway-normal life once they've done their time? I could respect or even support the argument for harsher sentences in this case, but hounding these people to the point where they can barely scrape by after they've been released strikes me as perverseI guess I never considered life for the person on the list. I can see how it is rather cruel to them. So the solution for me would have to be either harsher sentences, or mandated therapy that is proven to work. The inherent problem being I don't think we have a proven method that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I know a guy who was charged with ten counts of possessing and distributing child pornography. He got three years probation, and a lifetime on the sex offenders list. I am very happy he will be on that list forever. Not all of these people go to prison, and I would much rather families with young kids know that a person attracted to young kids is living near them. So they could at least take precaution. What precautions would they take? I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 What precautions would they take? I'm curious.Like maybe beware of the really friendly neighbor, who always appears when the kids are playing outside. I guess there really isn't that much though that you probably wouldn't already be teaching your kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Like maybe beware of the really friendly neighbor, who always appears when the kids are playing outside. I guess there really isn't that much though that you probably wouldn't already be teaching your kid. My point exactly. We always teach kids not to go off alone with strangers, or to get into their cars, so I don't see what would be different. I guess you could imagine a scenario in which a sex offender was a family friend, and after consulting a registry you could then keep your kid away from him, but, again, you can imagine that. I don't think we should create policy based on what we can imagine; we should stick to what we know and can measure. As far as I know, there is no credible evidence that Megan's Laws and sex offender registries have any preventative effect on sexual assaults on children, the vast majority of which are perpetrated by someone the child already knows. Until I see such evidence, I remain opposed to registries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Tracker, I think you may be lumping two issues into one here. Its my understanding that the registry is a law enforcement tool first and a public notice second. I cant speak for all states but from my limited understanding the main point of the registry is to notify local law enforcement when someone moves or gains employement in their town (or county). I suspect there may be other methods of getting this data but I'm not sure. At this time I would not be in favor of eliminating a registry for tracking purposes because law enforcement needs a quick way to look for suspects when crimes occur. Maybe there are alternate ways to get this data but for now, like you said, we should stick to what we know and can measure. If a sex crime occurs the registry can be a critical tool for law enforcement to use to solve crimes. I think your bigger issue is probably the public notice. I'd personally be in favor of much longer sentances for sex offenders and not making them eligible for parole in lieu of eliminating the registry. I still think they are going to run into issues in gaining employement in many cases because companies run background checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Tracker, I think you may be lumping two issues into one here. Its my understanding that the registry is a law enforcement tool first and a public notice second. I cant speak for all states but from my limited understanding the main point of the registry is to notify local law enforcement when someone moves or gains employement in their town (or county). I suspect there may be other methods of getting this data but I'm not sure. At this time I would not be in favor of eliminating a registry for tracking purposes because law enforcement needs a quick way to look for suspects when crimes occur. Maybe there are alternate ways to get this data but for now, like you said, we should stick to what we know and can measure. If a sex crime occurs the registry can be a critical tool for law enforcement to use to solve crimes. I think your bigger issue is probably the public notice. I'd personally be in favor of much longer sentances for sex offenders and not making them eligible for parole in lieu of eliminating the registry. I still think they are going to run into issues in gaining employement in many cases because companies run background checks. No, my issue is that I've seen no evidence that these registries serve any purpose at all other than making people think they are safe. Have these registries ever proved instrumental in preventing a crime, or in solving one? Can we even know? For myself, I'd like answers to those questions before I'll support placing people who have served their time on a publicly available list for years or decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I live within a few hundred yards of a medium security prison. It is packed completely full. Most of the convicts therein are sex offenders. Some years back, my Ex accessed the sex offender registry around here and dang near pulled a midnight move when she learned her apartment complex had five tenants on the list (out of 36 units). In the wake of the 207-2008 crash, I went back to pizza delivery for a year. I was the ONLY employee there (including management) who had not done a year plus prison time at some point in the past (one guy actually went on leave to go back to prison, and got out again right before I left). These guys were not DUI types or casual drug users, either, nor had their time in the lock-up truly reformed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkess Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 No, I don't have a problem with the police having a registry. It's the registry being public and the mandatory introduction that I am against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Does the mandatory introduction thing exist anywhere? The only time Ive heard.of it was in the Big Lebowski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 No, I don't have a problem with the police having a registry. It's the registry being public and the mandatory introduction that I am against. Should registries be limited to sex offenders, or should we add other offenders to the list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Isn't that really just a criminal record? Something police already have access to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I'm not in law enforcement so just speculating but I think the difference between a records search and a registry is that the offenders are required by law to report to the registry when they move or change jobs. If you did not have that legal requirement the system would break down pretty quickly. Sure the police can do a criminal records search but with the registry in place they have an immediate list of possible suspects if a crime occurs. The odds of the addresses being up to date are much better than if you just relied on criminal record search. Part of the law involves consequences if you don't register. Should registries be limited to sex offenders, or should we add other offenders to the list? I don't have time to pull studies but i'd speculate that there is data to support the fact that it is more common for sex offenders to reoffend, hence the existence of the registry. Not sure if other crimes have the a similar rate of re-offending or have as significant long term effects on victims. I suppose the registry is just an extension of parole and that the legal system has classified sex crimes as a special category that comes with additional steps in the punishment process. Kind of like how they have hate crime laws in different states that include additional punishments. I'd much prefer the legal system to treat sex offenders more harshly on sentencing to protect the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.