NationStates Jolt Archive

From a Finnish news paper:

A man who molested his children for years received an uncommonly long punishment of 9 years in jail for the crimes he committed against his children. The court found the man guilty of molesting his two daughters and abusing several of his children between 1995-2004.

He began molesting his other daughter when she was 12 and continued for approx. 9 years. The man had intercourse with the child and raped his adult daughter in 2004.

The molesting of the other child continued for approx. 2 years while the child was still underage. The man had also beat up several of his children repeatedly. Some of the assault charges had expired before the man was charged.


This a free-translation of this: http://www.iltalehti.fi/2005/11/11/200511093710452_uu.shtml

My question is: Does anyone actually think that 9 measly years is anywhere near enough for the guy? How would you punish him?

And most importantly: How do we get the courts to understand that 9 years IS NOT enough for something like thist (remember, this ruling was consideren exceptionally hard)

Maybe 10 years would be enough.

See, you have to remember that child rapists and molesters are like the bottem scum of prison. Everyone would treat this guy like crap, and this guy would probably get well beaten up and raped by other inmates.
I'd be surprised if he had lived if given 10 years.

My question is; is 1,000,000,000,000,000 years enough?

See, you have to remember that child rapists and molesters are like the bottem scum of prison. Everyone would treat this guy like crap, and this guy would probably get well beaten up and raped by other inmates.
I'd be surprised if he had lived if given 10 years.

Still, I don't think that's something that should be taken into account in court, and besides jails are relatively safe here in prison.

I just wonder how is it possible the people who commit accounting crimes get longer sentences?

Maybe 10 years would be enough.

See, you have to remember that child rapists and molesters are like the bottem scum of prison. Everyone would treat this guy like crap, and this guy would probably get well beaten up and raped by other inmates.
I'd be surprised if he had lived if given 10 years.
Good point, he's basically going to be a human shit bucket.

Still, I don't think that's something that should be taken into account in court, and besides jails are relatively safe here in prison.
Of course it is. Ten years of being raped, beaten, etc>20 years of minimum security prision

Of course it is. Ten years of being raped, beaten, etc>20 years of minimum security prision

But getting raped in prison isn't an official punishment and thus, imho, shouldn't be taken into consideration when judging these people. Besides I recall hearing that sometimes pedophiles are allowed to shower alone etc. to prevent prison gangbangs from happening, and they're sometimes kept in solitary confinement for their own safety.

child molesters don't get better, they can't be rehabilitated, I think the death penalty should be an option that we could enforce.

but I am probably biased.

child molesters don't get better, they can't be rehabilitated, I think the death penalty should be an option that we could enforce.

but I am probably biased.

The death penalty is not available in Finland, thankfully.

But getting raped in prison isn't an official punishment and thus, imho, shouldn't be taken into consideration when judging these people. Besides I recall hearing that sometimes pedophiles are allowed to shower alone etc. to prevent prison gangbangs from happening, and they're sometimes kept in solitary confinement for their own safety.
How can we not take the severity of punishment into consideration? If prision condition are likely to be cushy, a larger sentence may be needed. If they are tough, a shorter may be appropriate.

The death penalty is not available in Finland, thankfully.
I thought you were from and/or living in Sweden...? I mean given they are right next door, but still.

The death penalty is not available in Finland, thankfully.


I've got a better idea!

Castration with a rusty spoon, and then 25 years minimum in Prison with no special benifiets.
Also, encourage the other inmates to treat him as they see befitting.

I've got a better idea!

Castration with a rusty spoon, and then 25 years minimum in Prison with no special benifiets.
Also, encourage the other inmates to treat him as they see befitting.

Corporal punishment is also out of the question in Finland, and violence inmate against inmate is not encouraged. "Pound me in the ass federal prison" mentality is not common in these parts.

I thought you were from and/or living in Sweden...? I mean given they are right next door, but still.

I am from and living in Sweden. So? I can't have knowledge about Finland because of that?

How can we not take the severity of punishment into consideration? If prision condition are likely to be cushy, a larger sentence may be needed. If they are tough, a shorter may be appropriate.

Because rape in prison is something that should not happen no matter how much people like this deserve it. It's not part of the official sentence, and I'm pretty sure jail rapes are quite rare here so 9 years for this guy is practically nothing.

I don't think death penalty is the answer either, maybe just life in prison...

I am from and living in Sweden. So? I can't have knowledge about Finland because of that?
I was just curious. It (your post) seemed to give the impression you were living in Finland. Kind of like if I said "I'm glad America is such and such". Meh

And most importantly: How do we get the courts to understand that 9 years IS NOT enough for something like thist (remember, this ruling was consideren exceptionally hard)

You don't get the courts to "understand 9 years is not enough." You get the people you vote for in your legislative body, the people who pass the laws that the courts must enforce, to pass minimum mandatory sentences for crimes like this. That way the judge has no choice but to give the bastard the maximum sentence under the law.

You don't get the courts to "understand 9 years is not enough." You get the people you vote for in your legislative body, the people who pass the laws that the courts must enforce, to pass minimum mandatory sentences for crimes like this. That way the judge has no choice but to give the bastard the maximum sentence under the law.

Yes, one size fits all laws and excessive goverment interference in the judicary are always the answer.

I was just curious. It (your post) seemed to give the impression you were living in Finland. Kind of like if I said "I'm glad America is such and such". Meh

I can be glad Finland is such and such. They're in the EU and the Council of Europe, so no death penalty or corporal punishment there. That's always good news.

Yes, one size fits all laws and excessive goverment interference in the judicary are always the answer.

No, not always. For some crimes, especially those against children, probably.

Who the fuck voted that nine years is enough for this psycho?

No, not always. For some crimes, especially those against children, probably.

Why? Is murder and rape not equally upsetting as crimes against children?

I can be glad Finland is such and such. They're in the EU and the Council of Europe, so no death penalty or corporal punishment there. That's always good news.
Indeed, it is.

Who the fuck voted that nine years is enough for this psycho?

Someone who undersood that justice in not about revenge, and if the sentance was too lenient, the state would have appealed it.

child molesters don't get better, they can't be rehabilitated, I think the death penalty should be an option that we could enforce.

but I am probably biased.
here here
The death penalty is not available in Finland, thankfully.
IMO the only people who should be thankful about the death penalty not being available for rape and child molestation are those who would do it.

I am not trying to imply that that is the case with Fass

IMO the only people who should be thankful about the death penalty not being available for rape and child molestation are those who would do it.

Or those with an actual sense of morality and conviction strong enough not to be swayed from the right path because of emotional responses to things.

I am not trying to imply that that is the case with Fass

First you say that only those who would commit such a crime should be thankful at the progressed state of Finland, but then you say, "oh, maybe not only those - don't want to get into trouble with the rules, so I'll just back off from what I implied about him by claiming I didn't."

Hilarious.

I would say no to 9 years but what is molestation?
i know what it means but are we talking legally or morally?

He molested his kids for 9 years, in return he loses 9 years of his life. That's an eye for an eye. He suffers one year for every year he made them suffer. It sounds fair to me.

No, 9 years is not enough. Punishment doesn't come into it - it's for the safety of everyone else… so he doesn't ruin someone else's life or even *slips shamelessly into emotive mode* your daughter's!

No, 9 years is not enough. Punishment doesn't come into it - it's for the safety of everyone else… so he doesn't ruin someone else's life or even *slips shamelessly into emotive mode* your daughter's!

Then why not provide therapy instead?

From a Finnish news paper:



This a free-translation of this: http://www.iltalehti.fi/2005/11/11/200511093710452_uu.shtml

My question is: Does anyone actually think that 9 measly years is anywhere near enough for the guy? How would you punish him?

And most importantly: How do we get the courts to understand that 9 years IS NOT enough for something like thist (remember, this ruling was consideren exceptionally hard)

But if he got 20 years, there would be people asking "is 20 years enough"?

Some people are never happy when justice is done, because they either don't think it's enough, or they want to deal out the justice themselves.

My question is: Does anyone actually think that 9 measly years is anywhere near enough for the guy? How would you punish him?

And most importantly: How do we get the courts to understand that 9 years IS NOT enough for something like thist (remember, this ruling was consideren exceptionally hard)
Nope. It's a repeat-pedo, so he should never ever have any sort of access to children again.

Give the wanker treatment & lock him up in a mental hospital for life or something. Or add two zeros behind the nine.

.. Or kill the guy.

My question is: Does anyone actually think that 9 measly years is anywhere near enough for the guy? How would you punish him?

And most importantly: How do we get the courts to understand that 9 years IS NOT enough for something like thist (remember, this ruling was consideren exceptionally hard)
Lock the som-bitch up for the rest of his life!

The voters and parents have to revolt and demand justice!

Nope. It's a repeat-pedo, so he should never ever have any sort of access to children again.

Give the wanker treatment & lock him up in a mental hospital for life or something. Or add two zeros behind the nine.

.. Or kill the guy.

Just for information: According to current estimations, about 5-10% of all adult persons are indeed sexually aroused by children. It's just that most of them don't molest children because of a sense of morality or because of cowardice because of the punishment. So how do we handle those? Kill off a tenth of the population in every generation and hope evolution will take its course?

Just for information: According to current estimations, about 5-10% of all adult persons are indeed sexually aroused by children. It's just that most of them don't molest children because of a sense of morality or because of cowardice because of the punishment. So how do we handle those? Kill off a tenth of the population in every generation and hope evolution will take its course?
sometimes I have thoughts of smacking people, should I be arrested for my thoughts? no, if I act on them I should be arrested.

I don't buy the "I just like kids I was born this way, it's not my fault" defense.

Molesting a child is one of the worst things a person can do in this world, I don't really care if it is there fault or not, they need to be locked up so that they don't do it again. (this is esp true if you buy into the "they couldn't help themselves" idea) They can't be rehablitated, most molesters are repeat offenders, even after jail time, the won't stop.

No, 9 years is not enough. Punishment doesn't come into it - it's for the safety of everyone else… so he doesn't ruin someone else's life or even *slips shamelessly into emotive mode* your daughter's!

The criminal justice system is more about punishing the offender than protecting anybodys safety. If "protection" ever becomes an issue that has bearing on the length of a sentence, it should be because of the need to protect society in general, and not the individual.

There are other government agencies that are supposed to take care of the protection-part, notably the police.

Concerning this particular case: It is difficult to say whether 9 years is enough or not, because of the lack of details. The article states that he molested his two daugthers between 1995-2004, but says nothing about what type of molestation (except at least one case of intercourse and one rape), how many times, etc.

It should not be a black-or-white issue, as every individual case is different and there should be a punishment that fits the crime.

The criminal justice system is more about punishing the offender than protecting anybodys safety. If "protection" ever becomes an issue that has bearing on the length of a sentence, it should be because of the need to protect society in general, and not the individual.
society in general does need to be protected from pedophiles.



Concerning this particular case: It is difficult to say whether 9 years is enough or not, because of the lack of details. The article states that he molested his two daugthers between 1995-2004, but says nothing about what type of molestation (except at least one case of intercourse and one rape), how many times, etc.
so in some cases it is 'less bad'? exactly how bad does it have to be?
do you think the child is less traumatized if they were only raped 30 times instead of 40?

society in general does need to be protected from pedophiles.

In my opinion, yes it does. For example, if a pedophile rapist attacks several children, chosen at random (by this I mean that the rapist attacks when he sees an opportunity, any opportunity, like if he encounters a single child on a deserted road), then he is also attacking the general safety of society. As such, society in general needs protection.



so in some cases it is 'less bad'? exactly how bad does it have to be? do you think the child is less traumatized if they were only raped 30 times instead of 40?

Certainly some cases are less bad. If someone is raped 300 times by a parent during the course of a year, it can be a much much worse case of abuse than when a child is raped one time . And I'm not saying that that the single case of rape isn't a horrible thing. It is. But to determine the right punishment you have to look at all aspects of the individual case.

They should reinstate the death penalty for paedophiles. Too many of them reoffend and capital punishment is the only way to be 100% sure they won't.

Castration or possible execution. These "people" if you can call them that, don't deserve to live.

They should reinstate the death penalty for paedophiles. Too many of them reoffend and capital punishment is the only way to be 100% sure they won't.

Life in prison with no possibility of parole wouldn't guarantee that same thing?

Castration or possible execution. These "people" if you can call them that, don't deserve to live.

It's a good thing that one can be 100% certain of guilt 100% of the time then, and that we never have a single miscarriage of justice. But hey, so what if innocent people were castrated or executed, at least we would be sure that they would never commit a sex-crime in the future. :rolleyes:

rehabilitation is what I think the punishment should be there is no point in locking a prisoners up just so when they get out there slightly more crazy it also costs a bit

child molesters don't get better, they can't be rehabilitated, I think the death penalty should be an option that we could enforce.

but I am probably biased.
That or life in prison. They can't be rehabilitated. Once that particular line is crossed that person is forever a danger to society.

I keep seeing a lot of old myths perpetrated on this forum despite the fact Ive pointed them out before. So, Ill point them out one more time so we can keep them out of this thread. They are dealt with quite nicely in the myths vs facts section of the US DOD Center for Sex Offender Management website. I am listing some of the ones Ive heard repeated here and providing a link below so you can read the full site. It is interesting to note that despite the fact that the CSOM depends on the continued beleif in the myth of higher recidivism rates among pedophiles for its continued existence, they still admit that this is untrue, even if public knowledge of that fact would mean they are a rather useless agency:


Myth:
"Children who are sexually assaulted will sexually assault others when they grow up."

Fact:
Most sex offenders were not sexually assaulted as children and most children who are sexually assaulted do not sexually assault others.

Myth:
"Treatment for sex offenders is ineffective."

Fact:
Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention.

Myth:
"Most sex offenders reoffend."

Fact:
Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case...It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

Just for information: According to current estimations, about 5-10% of all adult persons are indeed sexually aroused by children. It's just that most of them don't molest children because of a sense of morality or because of cowardice because of the punishment. So how do we handle those? Kill off a tenth of the population in every generation and hope evolution will take its course?
Err...?

Where did I say anything about killing people for having a sick imagination?

Just for your information, I already knew. The OP didn't ask what I wanted to do about pedo sexuality, is asked what I thought about a weak prison sentence.

Since we're just making baseless assumptions here, how's this: do you think we should encourage people to go around raping eachother?

In case you didn't know, repeat pedo offenders are generally beyond help. Not even castration with rusty spoons works. Well.. I don't know if it's been tried with rusty spoons, but castration in it self doesn't mean the guy will stop molesting children. Nor does 9 year, or 9000 year prison sentences, or treatment.

It's not something we're able to cure. So the solution in our modern, brutal, countries, must be to lock the fuckers up for life. In a more humane world, we could simply isolate them from the surrounding world & otherwise let them do whatever the hell they please. But we humans aren't humane (oddly), and neither are our societies - Finland included.

I don't know why you assume I want to kill anyone or act as thought police. Just in case you're intrerested in my real opinion, I'd like us to sentence them to intensive treatment on first offence, and life long isolation on repeat offences. I don't see any reason to be overly cruel to them, as they obviously can't help it, but I don't see any reason to ever let repeat offenders have any possibility of comming into contact with possible victims either.

Now a small request: please refrain from posting what you want me to think about something. Either ask my opinion, or talk behind my back. Misrepresenting me & putting words in my mouth to my face is idiotic. And offensive.

Just for information: According to current estimations, about 5-10% of all adult persons are indeed sexually aroused by children. It's just that most of them don't molest children because of a sense of morality or because of cowardice because of the punishment. So how do we handle those? Kill off a tenth of the population in every generation and hope evolution will take its course?
Those who don't molest children aren't a problem. Actions are what hurt people, not thoughts. Everyone's had thoughts, for example, about violent revenge. As long as they don't kidnap, torture, or kill the person who wronged them they're still innocent members of society.

Those who don't molest children aren't a problem. Actions are what hurt people, not thoughts. Everyone's had thoughts, for example, about violent revenge. As long as they don't kidnap, torture, or kill the person who wronged them they're still innocent members of society.

Yer thats perfectly true. These people can't help their urges. They need to keep them under control. Attacking and molestering children is unacceptable and if people's morals allow them to rise above their urge then they should be congratulated not killed....

Good point, he's basically going to be a human shit bucket.
It's true, Robbers and Murderers even think that Child Rapists are scum. And the Guards tend to 'look the other way' for when a Child Molester is getting a beatdown. He won't last five, serves the asshole right.

I approve of Castration, but I mean phycial removal, not that stupid 'take a pill' crap that they can 'forget' to take.

No prison is enough - with sex crimes I'm a firm believer that castration would be a good punishment.

Life in prison with no possibility of parole wouldn't guarantee that same thing?
Life in prison without parole would suffice, but it would never stay that way. The government, especially the weak-kneed British government would only change the laws or find some other excuse to let them free. The good thing about the death penalty is that no amount of law changing and political bickering can bring a piece of scum like that back from the dead. Besides, there is always the prospect of escaping.

I just wish we had a government that had the guts to stand up to Europe and reintroduce capital punishment.

Life in prison without parole would suffice, but it would never stay that way. The government, especially the weak-kneed British government would only change the laws or find some other excuse to let them free. The good thing about the death penalty is that no amount of law changing and political bickering can bring a piece of scum like that back from the dead. Besides, there is always the prospect of escaping.

I just wish we had a government that had the guts to stand up to Europe and reintroduce capital punishment. Good God, a Michael Flowers.

We got rid of capital punishment 10 years before we entered the EU. Also, capital punishment is a bad idea - justice miscarries, it is a fact, and no amount of law changing and political bickering can bring an innocent man back from the dead.

Besides, there is always the prospect of 100ft walls.

The other problem with the death penalty - it doesn't lead to prolonged punishment. I'm completely against criminal rights - if they do something really bad, I want them to suffer for the duration of their natural lives =)

We got rid of capital punishment 10 years before we entered the EU. Also, capital punishment is a bad idea - justice miscarries, it is a fact, and no amount of law changing and political bickering can bring an innocent man back from the dead.

Besides, there is always the prospect of 100ft walls.
The possibility of a miscarriage of justice is my one reservation towards the death penalty. Perhaps there could be a way of requiring a higher burden of proof and DNA evidence, ect. And I think the deterrant value would be good. People would be less likely to kill if they realised that instead of being released in 12 years, they'd be executed. As for the 100ft walls, people always find ways to escape.

Maybe he raped his children in self defence.

The possibility of a miscarriage of justice is my one reservation towards the death penalty. Perhaps there could be a way of requiring a higher burden of proof and DNA evidence, ect. And I think the deterrant value would be good. People would be less likely to kill if they realised that instead of being released in 12 years, they'd be executed. As for the 100ft walls, people always find ways to escape.

The threat of execution works well as a deterrant? I' not convinced. There are still a lot of murders commited in states with capital punishment. What research I've seen indicates that the deterring effect is not remarkably different between the threat of capital punishment, the threat of life imprisonment, and long sentences like 50 years in prison.
What has a positive effect on the other hand, is if there is a higher risk of getting caught. So if the police has more resources and better crime-fighting tools, there should be less crime.

As a side note, I feel that politicians who promise more money to law enfocement are more serious about being "though on crime", while the ones calling for harsher penalties only wants to appear that way and don't want to spend any money (or political capital) to reduce crime.

No prison is enough - with sex crimes I'm a firm believer that castration would be a good punishment.

But not just any castration painful and slow castration without anesthetics

The possibility of a miscarriage of justice is my one reservation towards the death penalty. Perhaps there could be a way of requiring a higher burden of proof and DNA evidence, ect. And I think the deterrant value would be good. People would be less likely to kill if they realised that instead of being released in 12 years, they'd be executed. As for the 100ft walls, people always find ways to escape. Ah, but which is worse? A criminal who escapes, or an innocent man killed? I'd say the innocent man dying is worse - he leaves behind a family and suchlike. They need to be supported somehow.

The possibility of a miscarriage of justice is my one reservation towards the death penalty. Perhaps there could be a way of requiring a higher burden of proof and DNA evidence, ect. And I think the deterrant value would be good. People would be less likely to kill if they realised that instead of being released in 12 years, they'd be executed. As for the 100ft walls, people always find ways to escape.
The burden of proof (at least here in the US) is high enough. The death penalty is not a deterrant, esp. to people like pedophiles. The only reason that I brought it up (and this is going to sound really really bad) is so that we didn't have to pay to house them for life.

Off with his balls!

No prison is enough - with sex crimes I'm a firm believer that castration would be a good punishment.

castration isn't really going to work, because most pedophiles and rapists in general don't commit sex crimes for the sex, they do it for psycological reasons, and castration or not, they would still have the same urges and would find ways to satisfy them.

[I]Myth:
"Children who are sexually assaulted will sexually assault others when they grow up."

Fact:
Most sex offenders were not sexually assaulted as children and most children who are sexually assaulted do not sexually assault others.

But, there is a greater likelihood that child victims will assault others when they grow up. I've seen this situation several times over the past 10 years.


Myth: "Treatment for sex offenders is ineffective."

Fact:
Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention.

Agree. Getting the offender to buy into the program isn't easy though. Many of these guys don't want to admit that they have problem and claim that the victim 'seduced' them.

Myth: "Most sex offenders reoffend."

Fact:
Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case...It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population.


The problem I have with this assertion from CSOM website is that they identify the vast majority of child molesters as being relatives or a close relationship with the victim. In my experience this is 100% true.

But, the reason that there is little recidivism among this group is that, by this point, the offender has been identified by the relatives and the people in the community as dangerous and there is less chance for the molester to act out again. Not because the urge isn't there...only the opportunity has lessened and the risk has increased.

The problem I have with this assertion from CSOM website is that they identify the vast majority of child molesters as being relatives or a close relationship with the victim. In my experience this is 100% true.

But, the reason that there is little recidivism among this group is that, by this point, the offender has been identified by the relatives and the people in the community as dangerous and there is less chance for the molester to act out again. Not because the urge isn't there...only the opportunity has lessened and the risk has increased.

No, that is not the reason. That is your hypothesis for the reason, but you have not put it to any tests to prove whether it is true. Obviously, you do not have the resources to do primary research, but there is a simple test we can do using data that is already public. Look up the recidivism data prior to the implementation of the scarlet letter laws (community reporting laws, megans laws or whatever they are going by now). Then compare that to the recidivism data for after implementation of those laws. Do you notice any difference? The difference will vary depending on which sources you got the data from, but what you will find is that there is no statistically significant difference when you control for improvements in treatment (by using data of only those who are not undergoing treatment). Your hypothesis will not survive even this most simple of tests. Of course, this is not conclusive in any way, but showing that an increase in community awareness about who is a convicted sex offender does not lead to a decrease in recidivism rates certainly puts your "parents are more aware, so they dont have an opportunity" hypothesis on the ropes.

It's too dangerous to ever allow any child mollestors or rapists or other sexual predators into public. They should all be placed in their own separate prisons where they do hard work for the rest of their lives. This is being generous- getting three square meals a day, a place to sleep and be protected from other inmates who'd likely rip them to shreds, as is most common, is probably more than they deserve.

No, that is not the reason. That is your hypothesis for the reason, but you have not put it to any tests to prove whether it is true.


Hypothesis? Yes, I guess it is. One that I've based on 12 years of experience. Sometimes a person has to set aside statistics and form opinions based on the evidence at hand.

Your hypothesis will not survive even this most simple of tests. Of course, this is not conclusive in any way, but showing that an increase in community awareness about who is a convicted sex offender does not lead to a decrease in recidivism rates certainly puts your "parents are more aware, so they dont have an opportunity" hypothesis on the ropes.

We agree that the primary group of offenders are those who molest their own kids or relatives or children they have close relationships with, right? Maybe I am being a little naive or simplistic, but in my opinion once a mother knows that her husband has molested her children, the odds are that he will not have access to her kids or kids in his extended family any longer. Therefore reduced access means less likelihood of re-offending.

This view has nothing to do with sex offender registry laws or general community broadcasts. In my opinion those are more after-the-fact investigative tools, rather than preventative tools.

Hey..on the other hand, it's late and I'm tired. Maybe I'm missing something obvious:-)

Hypothesis? Yes, I guess it is. One that I've based on 12 years of experience. Sometimes a person has to set aside statistics and form opinions based on the evidence at hand.



We agree that the primary group of offenders are those who molest their own kids or relatives or children they have close relationships with, right? Maybe I am being a little naive or simplistic, but in my opinion once a mother knows that her husband has molested her children, the odds are that he will not have access to her kids or kids in his extended family any longer. Therefore reduced access means less likelihood of re-offending.

This view has nothing to do with sex offender registry laws or general community broadcasts. In my opinion those are more after-the-fact investigative tools, rather than preventative tools.

Hey..on the other hand, it's late and I'm tired. Maybe I'm missing something obvious:-)


Sure, for example how many spouses stay married to the person who was imprisoned for molesting their kids in the first place? You do bring up a good point, however this is where our limitations come into play. You would really have to fund a study on this to control for those factors. Still, you would expect more community notification to lower the recidivism rate, specially for those who are non-familial molesters. But the recidivism does not lower. So, no...its not conclusive or even strong evidence, but it is still evidence that your hypothesis may not be correct. We have no evidence that the hypothesis may be accurate, and the limited tests we do have the results for point it to it being inaccurate. So, Ill stick with the point of view that it is incorrect until stronger evidence shows otherwise.