NationStates Jolt Archive

Law creates homeless parolees, report says (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080222-9999-1n22offender.html)

Sex offenders limited by residency rules
By Bill Ainsworth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

February 22, 2008

SACRAMENTO – Residency restrictions imposed by Jessica's Law have caused hundreds of sex offenders in California to become homeless, and the problem will get considerably worse in the years to come if changes aren't made, according to a report by the state Sex Offender Management Board. The report, released yesterday, backs up a growing concern expressed by some law enforcement officials: Sex offenders are more likely to commit new crimes if they have no place to live.

Jessica's Law is aimed at protecting children by increasing sentences for many sex crimes. It imposes lifetime electronic monitoring on sex offenders and requires them to live more than 2,000 feet from schools and parks.

Ever since the residency rules began to be enforced last year, hundreds of sex offenders have become homeless and more are likely to follow. Officials say about 350 new parolees a month are subject to the law, which was approved overwhelmingly by voters as Proposition 83 in 2006.

The restrictions severely limit housing options in urban areas, the report said, while the state lacks transitional housing for parolees and does not have any program to help them find a place to live.

“It's going to continue to escalate, and it's going to get exponentially more challenging,” said Suzanne Brown-McBride, chairwoman of the Sex Offender Management Board.

Homeless sex offenders are less likely to find a job, seek treatment or connect with supportive relatives, parole agents say.

Sex offenders, the report said, “are less likely to re-offend, if they are successfully reintegrated into our community. Residency restrictions appear to severely limit the housing options for and support for reintegration of sex offenders.”

The board, created by the Legislature, said in its report that the state had improved assessing sex offenders based on their risk of committing a new crime and improving communication with treatment providers.

But the report pointed out that California is one of just a few states without a program that has been proved to help reduce recidivism: treatment of sex offenders in prison.

It also said Proposition 83 contains many flaws that need to be addressed. The measure is named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old who was raped and murdered by a paroled sex offender in Florida.

....

The report “provided valuable analysis and recommendations to help deal with some needed adjustments to Jessica's Law,” Maile said.

It highlighted the tension between the popularity of residency restrictions and their practical impact.

The public strongly supports requiring sex offenders to live more than 2,000 feet from schools, parks and any place children gather, but there is no evidence that these limits reduce recidivism, the report said.

Since the law's enforcement began, 607 sex offenders have declared themselves homeless – a fourfold increase, according to the state.

Many offenders have been forced to live away from relatives who could help stabilize their lives, the report said.

Elon Huggins is one of them.

The 48-year-old parolee, who served prison time for statutory rape, said in a recent interview that he would like to live with his 83-year-old disabled father, but he can't because his father's home is too close to a school.

Instead, Huggins sleeps in a trailer in the Sacramento area five blocks away from his father's home. Each morning, he said, he drives to his father's home and makes him breakfast.

“I worry because he's disabled,” Huggins said. “One time he fell and we had to call the paramedics.”



There is much more to the article, this is just a snippet.

This is one of those situations where people voted for a law because it was "tough" on sex offenders, without really worrying about whether the law would actually have a beneficial effect or might backfire.

can the state legislature modify a law that was passed by referendum?

Jessica's Law is aimed at protecting children by increasing sentences for many sex crimes. It imposes lifetime electronic monitoring on sex offenders and requires them to live more than 2,000 feet from schools and parks.
I don't think it is even physically possible to not live within 2,000 feet or a school (or place where children tend to gather) here.

can the state legislature modify a law that was passed by referendum?

AFAIK, yes. But I'm less than 100% certain.

Proposition 83 was just an amendment of existing statutes and not the California Constitution, so I think it can be changed like any other statute.

I'd welcome the opinion of someone who is more sure.

They usually end up sharing motels, as I recall. But I can't exactly shed a tear for them if they end up homeless - perhaps shelters or halfway homes could be built, but letting them back into society shouldn't be on the table if they're high-risk.

can the state legislature modify a law that was passed by referendum?In this case, it's not particularly easy:

SEC. 33. Amendment Clause:
The provisions of this act shall not be amended by the Legislature
except by a statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the
journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, or by a
statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters. However,
the Legislature may amend the provisions of this act to expand the scope
of their application or to increase the punishments or penalties provided
herein by a statute passed by majority vote of each house thereof.In short: two-thirds of each house, or another referendum.

In this case, it's not particularly easy:

In short: two-thirds of each house, or another referendum.

Ah ha. Thank you. I knew someone would have a better answer than I did.

They usually end up sharing motels, as I recall. But I can't exactly shed a tear for them if they end up homeless - perhaps shelters or halfway homes could be built, but letting them back into society shouldn't be on the table if they're high-risk.

It's unclear what levels are subject to what restrictions. Most states have sub-categories for registered offenders such that low-risk registrants tend to be less restricted than high-risk ones. if it's a situation where low-risk offenders are having these problems, then it is a definite lack of justice, especially when you consider how ridiculously simple it is to get on that list in some cases.

I have an acquaintance who's a registered sex offender despite the fact that he has never been convicted of a sex crime. He was being released from prison for a child physical abuse charge (not sexual abuse) and the DA had him register as a child sex offender "just in case." Which is idiotic at best. Had he refused to sign the registration document, he was told he'd have been tossed right back into prison. Now he's trying to get it cleared up but it doesn't appear he will be very successful without having to spend $$$ on a lawyer to force the state to straighten it out.

Methinks the whole concept is utter B.S.

Law creates homeless parolees, report says (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080222-9999-1n22offender.html)



There is much more to the article, this is just a snippet.

This is one of those situations where people voted for a law because it was "tough" on sex offenders, without really worrying about whether the law would actually have a beneficial effect or might backfire.
You can bet this will guarantee a whole lot of re offenders with them homeless, and of course it'll create lots of other crime.

In other words it was a pretty fucking stupid idea and people didn't bother to think out the consequences.

You can bet this will guarantee a whole lot of re offenders with them homeless, and of course it'll create lots of other crime.

In other words it was a pretty fucking stupid idea and people didn't bother to think out the consequences.

It's feel good legislation. Ever notice how politicians on election years like to pass "tougher laws on sex offenders?" Doesn't really matter what the results will be. All they have to do is chant the "think of the children" mantra and they come off like heroes.

Law creates homeless parolees, report says (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080222-9999-1n22offender.html)



There is much more to the article, this is just a snippet.

This is one of those situations where people voted for a law because it was "tough" on sex offenders, without really worrying about whether the law would actually have a beneficial effect or might backfire.

We have a very similar law where I live. Last year a man moved in our subdivision, the flyers went out letting us all know he served 3 years for raping an 11 year old girl. It wasn't long before he was required to move from the neighborhood. On each corner of our neighborhood is a school bus stop. Sex offenders here cannot live with a certain distance a school bus stop either.

Frankly, though it sounds cold, I don't care that it is hard for them to find a place to live. I have absolutely no sympathy for the asswipes. :mad:

We have a very similar law where I live. Last year a man moved in our subdivision, the flyers went out letting us all know he served 3 years for raping an 11 year old girl. It wasn't long before he was required to move from the neighborhood. On each corner of our neighborhood is a school bus stop. Sex offenders here cannot live with a certain distance a school bus stop either.

Frankly, though it sounds cold, I don't care that it is hard for them to find a place to live. I have absolutely no sympathy for the asswipes. :mad:

Oh yeah that's constructive.

Has it ever occurred to you that pedophila is an illness? (I mean, that should be obvious. What person in their right mind looks at a child and goes "hmmmmm.....") We're talking about guys who, more often than not, h ave no earthly idea why they've doen what they've done and generally do have a sincere desire to be cured of it and move on with their life as best they can. The common image we have of some dirty weirdo baiting kids in the park is the tiny minority. More often than not, alcohol is involved.

Treatment has taken the category of sex crimes from the highest recitivism rate to the lowest (According to a DOJ report from 2004).

It's time to stop putting ourselves up on pedestals. We need answers and cures, not feel good laws that givs us an excuse to throw stones.

These laws really amount to being exiled from the city... and we all know there has NEVER been a case of sex offenders moving around and being out of the watchful eye of the authorities.... :rolleyes:

Oh yeah that's constructive.

Has it ever occurred to you that pedophila is an illness? (I mean, that should be obvious. What person in their right mind looks at a child and goes "hmmmmm.....") We're talking about guys who, more often than not, h ave no earthly idea why they've doen what they've done and generally do have a sincere desire to be cured of it and move on with their life as best they can. The common image we have of some dirty weirdo baiting kids in the park is the tiny minority. More often than not, alcohol is involved.

Treatment has taken the category of sex crimes from the highest recitivism rate to the lowest (According to a DOJ report from 2004).

It's time to stop putting ourselves up on pedestals. We need answers and cures, not feel good laws that givs us an excuse to throw stones.

I'm a parent, I don't have the privilege of considering whether the man who raped the 11 year old girl is cured or not. It isn't my problem, what is my problem is keeping my children safe from harm. If I wanted to live where the risk was high regarding children endangerment I would move to crack alley frankly. But I carefully chose my neighborhood/school district for the safety factor involved.

I know that I have worked with adults who were molested as children and those scars last forever my friend. So as far as these poor bastards having issues finding a place to live, if it is forever they have problems it feels very just frankly. Isn't justice supposed to "feel good"?

This is one issue I am a mean bitch about and I don't owe any sympathy to anyone. I don't care if they are ill or not. They do not deserve the respect of living among the children of our society. Children are the most precious asset in our society, I don't want them exposed to sex offenders any more than I want them exposed to rabid dogs.

My responsibility is to children. You are free to feel responsible for the scum.

Bah, I have to go and it is a good thing. Please don't take this personally it isn't my intent to attack you as a person. Not much angers me but excusing these freaks does I'm sorry to say.

Exile should be a valid punishment. We just need to wall up some island and put them on it. Isn't the Bronx on an island? No one could escape from New York.

The Bronx is the only part of New York city that's NOT on an island.
But thank you for playing.

These laws really amount to being exiled from the city... and we all know there has NEVER been a case of sex offenders moving around and being out of the watchful eye of the authorities.... :rolleyes:

Exile should be a valid punishment. We just need to wall up some island and put them on it. Isn't the Bronx on an island? No one could escape from New York.

So as far as these poor bastards having issues finding a place to live, if it is forever they have problems it feels very just frankly. Isn't justice supposed to "feel good"?

...

My responsibility is to children. You are free to feel responsible for the scum.

So trying to rehabilitate them wouldn't be better than kicking them to the streets and saying f%&$ off? The way I see it, the latter would just be INVITING them to become repeat offenders.

The law probably should be relaxed. I think the worst thing to do to a person with a problem is take away their support system, and removing a sex offender who hopefully wants to correct his ways and become a contributing member of society from his family seems like taking all that support away.

I know every parent foams at the mouth and will have knee-jerk reactions the second someone wants to do something "for the benefit of the kids", but just because it looks good on paper doesn't mean it'll work. Homeless sex offenders, in my opinion, would probably be a bit more dangerous.

I'm a parent, I don't have the privilege of considering whether the man who raped the 11 year old girl is cured or not. It isn't my problem, what is my problem is keeping my children safe from harm. If I wanted to live where the risk was high regarding children endangerment I would move to crack alley frankly. But I carefully chose my neighborhood/school district for the safety factor involved.

I know that I have worked with adults who were molested as children and those scars last forever my friend. So as far as these poor bastards having issues finding a place to live, if it is forever they have problems it feels very just frankly. Isn't justice supposed to "feel good"?

This is one issue I am a mean bitch about and I don't owe any sympathy to anyone. I don't care if they are ill or not. They do not deserve the respect of living among the children of our society. Children are the most precious asset in our society, I don't want them exposed to sex offenders any more than I want them exposed to rabid dogs.

My responsibility is to children. You are free to feel responsible for the scum.

Bah, I have to go and it is a good thing. Please don't take this personally it isn't my intent to attack you as a person. Not much angers me but excusing these freaks does I'm sorry to say.

What about the people who are wrongly convicted? Our justice system isn't perfect, and a lot of innocent people fall through the cracks.

Your reaction to a child molester is perfectly understandable, but I have to wonder if you feel like schizophrenics or manic depressives are also scum of the earth? A psychological disorder is a psychological disorder, regardless of the behavioral ramifications of the disorder; we can't just decide that we'll only treat some of the sick people.

There is also the issue that you can be convicted of murder and not have to go through so many hoops as a sex offender. Why is it that a rapist is going to be treated like a worse criminal than a murderer? If I had to make the decision between having my child molested or murdered... well, I just hope to never be in that position.

There is no good solution to this problem, and I don't think that a law that makes people homeless and more at-risk for relapse is a good solution. We kinda need to understand that it is unreasonable to lock someone up forever for sex crimes, and they need to live somewhere when they get out.

Exile should be a valid punishment. We just need to wall up some island and put them on it. Isn't the Bronx on an island? No one could escape from New York.

Don't you watch movies? Making some kind of island/orbital prison inevitably leads to a breakout of epic proportions.

You find that "excusing those freaks" makes you angry? Well, I find that child-worship sanctimony angers me.

Thank you for saying this.... somebody needed to and I didn't have the balls.

I'm a parent, I don't have the privilege of considering whether the man who raped the 11 year old girl is cured or not. It isn't my problem, what is my problem is keeping my children safe from harm. If I wanted to live where the risk was high regarding children endangerment I would move to crack alley frankly. But I carefully chose my neighborhood/school district for the safety factor involved.

I know that I have worked with adults who were molested as children and those scars last forever my friend. So as far as these poor bastards having issues finding a place to live, if it is forever they have problems it feels very just frankly. Isn't justice supposed to "feel good"?

This is one issue I am a mean bitch about and I don't owe any sympathy to anyone. I don't care if they are ill or not. They do not deserve the respect of living among the children of our society. Children are the most precious asset in our society, I don't want them exposed to sex offenders any more than I want them exposed to rabid dogs.

My responsibility is to children. You are free to feel responsible for the scum.

Bah, I have to go and it is a good thing. Please don't take this personally it isn't my intent to attack you as a person. Not much angers me but excusing these freaks does I'm sorry to say.

Bullshit.

How very Christian of you. Either we're all God's children or we're not. Which is it?

You do realize that there's no way to insulate a child from every potential danger, right? So long as you teach your children common sense and situational awareness, they'll be fine in the absence of some outlandish, utterly odds-bucking occurrence.

But don't hop on that "I'm a parent" high horse. It doesn't make you special, or even noble. In fact your callous disregard for another human being makes you as flawed in your own way as I am, as all of NSG is, and yes, as any sex offender is.

You find that "excusing those freaks" makes you angry? Well, I find that child-worship sanctimony angers me.

Don't you watch movies? Making some kind of island/orbital prison inevitably leads to a breakout of epic proportions.

Especially if New York is turned into a prison ;)

This is why all sex offenders should be summarily executed. Then we don't have to worry about them reoffending. Nor do we have to worry about how sad they are now that they don't have homes. Oh, those poor, poor sex offenders.

This is one of those situations where people voted for a law because it was "tough" on sex offenders, without really worrying about whether the law would actually have a beneficial effect or might backfire.Yeah, it makes one question the wisdom of referenda in modern political societies. Average people are not prone to consider very carefully the costs of policy choices... but even setting aside that healthy dose of pragmatic elitism (and it is pragmatic, not ideal), the fact is that people in a large, diverse state like California are not well positioned even to recognize the real effects of legislation.

In a smaller society, people experience a more immediate relationship between policy and outcome. Hence, direct democracy makes sense. In a polity of massive population and expansive geographic limits, it only makes sense that a political elite (of some form) must take up the information, organizational, and bargaining costs of enacting legislation that truly serves the public good.

Not that they always do such a great job. Nor should this suggest that I think we've done very well at figuring out which political elites should make decisions, how they should be made, and how any of this should relate to "the people"... who do, of course, remain ever sovereign.

We have a very similar law where I live. Last year a man moved in our subdivision, the flyers went out letting us all know he served 3 years for raping an 11 year old girl. It wasn't long before he was required to move from the neighborhood. On each corner of our neighborhood is a school bus stop. Sex offenders here cannot live with a certain distance a school bus stop either.

Frankly, though it sounds cold, I don't care that it is hard for them to find a place to live. I have absolutely no sympathy for the asswipes. :mad:
I have no sympathy for halfwits.

Did it ever occur to you that people who are removed from society are far more likely to offend? Or that if they have nowhere to live and are homeless that it is impossible to keep track of them?

And this is to say nothing of the "sex offender" catch all designation.

Sex offender has been applied to someone caught urinating in public. yeah, lets fuck over someone for the rest of their life over something like that. Real nice.

I'm a parent, I don't have the privilege of considering whether the man who raped the 11 year old girl is cured or not. It isn't my problem, what is my problem is keeping my children safe from harm. If I wanted to live where the risk was high regarding children endangerment I would move to crack alley frankly. But I carefully chose my neighborhood/school district for the safety factor involved.

I know that I have worked with adults who were molested as children and those scars last forever my friend. So as far as these poor bastards having issues finding a place to live, if it is forever they have problems it feels very just frankly. Isn't justice supposed to "feel good"?

This is one issue I am a mean bitch about and I don't owe any sympathy to anyone. I don't care if they are ill or not. They do not deserve the respect of living among the children of our society. Children are the most precious asset in our society, I don't want them exposed to sex offenders any more than I want them exposed to rabid dogs.

My responsibility is to children. You are free to feel responsible for the scum.



Wait for it....There! I just had a brillant idea! Lets just give the death sentence to anyone convicted of a sex crime. That way there wont be any problems when they are released. Sure, a few innocents might fall through the cracks, but isn't that a price worth paying? It also wont put an end to new cases, but hey, whose perfect. Who wants to try to rehabilitate people anyway? A bullets cheaper than therapy. Line em up! :sniper:

Here's what I don't understand: if someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to come within 2000 feet of a child without raping them, why are we letting them out of prison?

It just seems rather obvious to me that either someone is safe to be released or they are not, and if the latter, they shouldn't freaking be released, and if the former, we need to leave them alone and let them get on with their lives.

Silly Poli. We have to let them out of prison so we can show how hard we're being on the evil sex offenders/child molesters(cos the two are always the same) by ruining their lives. They won't have much of a life to ruin in jail, will they?

Is any distinction made by the law between someone who is caught urinating in public and a child molester? Maybe they need to distinguish between minor crimes and major ones.

Here's what I don't understand: if someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to come within 2000 feet of a child without raping them, why are we letting them out of prison?

It just seems rather obvious to me that either someone is safe to be released or they are not, and if the latter, they shouldn't freaking be released, and if the former, we need to leave them alone and let them get on with their lives.

Must be hard to be a hobo when you can't get within 2,000 feet of a park. ;)

In this case, it's not particularly easy:

In short: two-thirds of each house, or another referendum.

thanks

doesnt that seem kinda likely to not be a constitutional provision? (not that i know anything about the californian constitution of course)

Here's what I don't understand: if someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to come within 2000 feet of a child without raping them, why are we letting them out of prison?

It just seems rather obvious to me that either someone is safe to be released or they are not, and if the latter, they shouldn't freaking be released, and if the former, we need to leave them alone and let them get on with their lives.

once they have served their time, its not legal to keep punishing them.

over the past few years the prison time for child molestation of various types has been increased. these people can be kept for a longer time because they get longer sentences.

good luck on finding a politician out there with enough balls to ignore the inevitable FOX-driven public outcry of pandering to pedophiles and child molesters and rescind this bit of knee-jerk, poorly-thought out, legislation.

Zoning sex offenders away from everywhere with children is fucking pointless. They're still fucking perverts who can drive to where children are and do the sick shit they do.

They should make sex offender colonies. Just big gated ghettos where they can all stay.

once they have served their time, its not legal to keep punishing them.

over the past few years the prison time for child molestation of various types has been increased. these people can be kept for a longer time because they get longer sentences.

Which is why WW2-esque ghettos would be a great place for child molestors. They have a lot more freedom then they would in prison, they just can't leave.

Which is why WW2-esque ghettos would be a great place for child molestors. They have a lot more freedom then they would in prison, they just can't leave.

id prefer strict long term prison time that reflects the severity of the crime.

Which is why WW2-esque ghettos would be a great place for child molestors. They have a lot more freedom then they would in prison, they just can't leave.

The Jewish Ghettoes (which go back to at least the 6th century, btw) worked only because the division was largely mutual, i.e. the Jews didn't want to associate with the Gentiles either.

Unless you're talking about the Warsaw Ghetto, where the Jews were being systematically starved to death in WWII...

Unless we start treating these criminals in a rational manner instead of a hysterical one, problems like this will only get worse.

Personally I think what should happen is the punishment for sex offence should be having your sexuality chemically removed using hormone suppresants, much like the ones many Catholic priests use voluntarilly. They're safe, they're effective, and in many cases, they can help us bring these people back in to the community, especially if it's largely a mental health issue with little outside character flaw. And as long as the side effects aren't too malicious, it won't be cruel and unusual.

Those poor, poor sex offenders. If only we understood their pain.

Ooo! I've got a brilliant idea. It will eliminate the risk of reoffenders as well as solve the sex offender homelessness crisis.

Execute all sex offenders.

Quick fact: 0% of all executed sex offenders have ever reoffended.

I'm a parent, I don't have the privilege of considering whether the man who raped the 11 year old girl is cured or not.
<snip>


Good for you. I'm a parent too and you know what? if a sex offender lived near me it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference how I handle my kids. Know why? Because I already watch over them closely and teach them how to deal with situations involving strangers and such. Having a sex offender near me would change nothing because that base is already covered.


Bah, I have to go and it is a good thing. Please don't take this personally it isn't my intent to attack you as a person. Not much angers me but excusing these freaks does I'm sorry to say.

Who's excusing them? A registered sex offender is someone who has ALREADY served their time in whatever manner is prescribed by their sentencing. (Assuming, of course, that there was a crime committed in the first place. Scary that in some jurisdictions you can be court ordered to register without a criminal charge.) To continue poking at them is just an emotional indulgence. This is a land of justice, not torture.

Or do you think having to live with that scarlet letter isn't torture?

Yeah, this hits close to home because I know people that have to live with it and they're guys who don't belong on that list.

Bullshit.

How very Christian of you. Either we're all God's children or we're not. Which is it?

You do realize that there's no way to insulate a child from every potential danger, right? So long as you teach your children common sense and situational awareness, they'll be fine in the absence of some outlandish, utterly odds-bucking occurrence.

But don't hop on that "I'm a parent" high horse. It doesn't make you special, or even noble. In fact your callous disregard for another human being makes you as flawed in your own way as I am, as all of NSG is, and yes, as any sex offender is.

You find that "excusing those freaks" makes you angry? Well, I find that child-worship sanctimony angers me.

I hope you're a female because I think I wuv you.

Is any distinction made by the law between someone who is caught urinating in public and a child molester? Maybe they need to distinguish between minor crimes and major ones.

It depends on the circumstance. If it's a public indecency charge and only adults see you do it, it's a misdemeanor. If a kid sees it (even if you dind't mean for them to), it's a SEVERE misdemeanor and it means registering.

Nice and arbitrary.

Personally I think what should happen is the punishment for sex offence should be having your sexuality chemically removed using hormone suppresants, much like the ones many Catholic priests use voluntarilly. They're safe, they're effective, and in many cases, they can help us bring these people back in to the community, especially if it's largely a mental health issue with little outside character flaw. And as long as the side effects aren't too malicious, it won't be cruel and unusual.

I believe for dangerous or repeat offenders this is already done in some jurisdictions.

Once they've paid their debt to society there's no reason to keep punishing them. However the penalties should be massively increased. I'm talking about double digit years for child molestation on the first offense, perhaps castration if it's bad enough. As to pedophilia, well, I think it, like all other sexual choices is well...a choice. And it's their damn problem to pursue sick fantasies like that, face the consequences - you're an outcast from society. The law's stupid, but it's still the law, and I'm leaning towards supporting it, if only because rejection of pedophilia's one of the last barriers of moral decency left in the modern, utterly depraved society.

When someone can be legally classified as a sex offender for something unrelated such as physical assault or public urination, there is a serious problem in the system, right up there with the Bush Administration declaring anyone a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" and locking them up as long as they please.

If you're going to bring the bludgeon down hard, you better be damn sure whoever is going to have his brain smashed in really deserves it.

Here's what I don't understand: if someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to come within 2000 feet of a child without raping them, why are we letting them out of prison?

It just seems rather obvious to me that either someone is safe to be released or they are not, and if the latter, they shouldn't freaking be released, and if the former, we need to leave them alone and let them get on with their lives.

I like the idea, but unfortunately there are too many people serving hard time for marijuana offenses and the prisons are too full. Apparently, the "war on drugs" takes precedence over sex offenders, no matter what the politicians trot out come election time.

I hope you're a female because I think I wuv you.

I AM LRR OF THE PLANET OMICRON PERSEI 8! THIS CONCEPT OF "WUV" CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!!!

Sorry to disappoint you, though I'm flattered, I'm also packin' a dumbstick.

if a sex offender lived near me it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference how I handle my kids.
Pedo! :p

Here's what I don't understand: if someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to come within 2000 feet of a child without raping them, why are we letting them out of prison?
Or, if not prison, then some sort of safe, child-free environment.

I mean, if there are somepeople who are completely unable -- either biologically or psychologically -- to prevent their desires in regards to children, then the idea of punishment seems a bit off to me.

Just as I don't see why we should punish (in the sense of locking them up in a regular prison) violent psychopaths and sociopaths who can't control their actions. We don't punish a small child for wetting the bed because the act is involuntary; they can't control themselves. If this is the same for peadophiles, then we've got to rethink our strategy.

Inane calls for castration, execution or the like are completely missing the point.

Here's an idea.

In the South Atlantic Ocean there are many British owned Island, some of which are uninhabited.

South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands could be used to house these people. They could have their "needs" catered for. Children would be safe.

Everyone wins.

It depends on the circumstance. If it's a public indecency charge and only adults see you do it, it's a misdemeanor. If a kid sees it (even if you dind't mean for them to), it's a SEVERE misdemeanor and it means registering.

Nice and arbitrary.


WHAT???

Please tell me you're joking... you can get registered as a sex offender in the States cause a kid sees you taking a piss???


Why?
I mean, peeing onto anything public isn't very nice or hygenic, but at worst you ought to be made to clean it up, and that's it. What on earth does that have to do with sexual offense??? :confused:

Urine is sterile. So it's just not very nice.

Well, it starts smelling rather unhygenic-like after a while.

WHAT???

Please tell me you're joking... you can get registered as a sex offender in the States cause a kid sees you taking a piss???


Why?
I mean, peeing onto anything public isn't very nice or hygenic, but at worst you ought to be made to clean it up, and that's it. What on earth does that have to do with sexual offense??? :confused:

Urine is sterile. So it's just not very nice.

WHAT???

Please tell me you're joking... you can get registered as a sex offender in the States cause a kid sees you taking a piss???


Why?
I mean, peeing onto anything public isn't very nice or hygenic, but at worst you ought to be made to clean it up, and that's it. What on earth does that have to do with sexual offense??? :confused:

Because the kid saw you take your weewee out.

Well, it starts smelling rather unhygenic-like after a while.

Granted.

I didn't mean to detract from your incredulity at the draconian US laws. I guess I'm just used to the whole child-fetish that much of the country has, and it gets on my nerves.

Granted.

I didn't mean to detract from your incredulity at the draconian US laws. I guess I'm just used to the whole child-fetish that much of the country has, and it gets on my nerves.

Boy, it sure would.
A strange story I heard about on TV quite a while back is begining to make sense to me now :
A family (parents and two small sons) went on a camping trip somewhere in the US, pretty remote area somewhere. It was summer, they had a lake nearby and regularly went for swims in the nude, as the parents saw no reason for any clothing really. They were having a great time, lots of fun, and were of course taking pictures of the vacation.
They said they had one great camping tradition : on the day they left, the father and the two sons traditionally pissed out the camp fire, as a little ceremony. And cause the kids loved it.
After the vacation, the mother took the pictures to be developed, and two days later she had the cops at her front door to arrest her and her husband as child molesters. The shop assistant who had developed the pictures had called the police on them.
Not sure what exactly happened in the case, but I seem to recall they both were convicted, and at the time of the report were appealing the decision.

And all this time I thought that was an invented report...

In the UK it's a case of open season on 'em.

Children are to Britain what birds are to shotguns.

Law creates homeless parolees, report says (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080222-9999-1n22offender.html)



There is much more to the article, this is just a snippet.

This is one of those situations where people voted for a law because it was "tough" on sex offenders, without really worrying about whether the law would actually have a beneficial effect or might backfire.

I think that if a criminal has served their time in a corrective institution, and if they have completed (or are doing well) on their parole, then there should be no further punishment.

If we deem that these people are fit to re-enter society we should really let them re-enter society. I dislike how Level 3 Sex Offenders have to announce to the world their criminal history... it disallows sex offenders the chance to become anything more, or above their past, which is an opportunity that America tries to afford people... after all, isn't that what America was founded on?

If we are to keep punishing these people, I say keep them in prison, rather than release them, but to keep them forever on strings that aren't parole is something that seems vastly unjust, and unamerican.

Boy, it sure would.
A strange story I heard about on TV quite a while back is begining to make sense to me now :
A family (parents and two small sons) went on a camping trip somewhere in the US, pretty remote area somewhere. It was summer, they had a lake nearby and regularly went for swims in the nude, as the parents saw no reason for any clothing really. They were having a great time, lots of fun, and were of course taking pictures of the vacation.
They said they had one great camping tradition : on the day they left, the father and the two sons traditionally pissed out the camp fire, as a little ceremony. And cause the kids loved it.
After the vacation, the mother took the pictures to be developed, and two days later she had the cops at her front door to arrest her and her husband as child molesters. The shop assistant who had developed the pictures had called the police on them.
Not sure what exactly happened in the case, but I seem to recall they both were convicted, and at the time of the report were appealing the decision.

And all this time I thought that was an invented report...

Well, that's a microgram of responsibility on those parents' shoulders. However much it "shouldn't" be an issue, the paranoia is so rampant here that they should have known not to have those photos commercially developed.

Sad, but true.

Law creates homeless parolees, report says (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080222-9999-1n22offender.html)



There is much more to the article, this is just a snippet.

This is one of those situations where people voted for a law because it was "tough" on sex offenders, without really worrying about whether the law would actually have a beneficial effect or might backfire.

By "one of those situations" you must mean legislation.

Conservative politics is, in large part, based on being "tough" on "bad guys." Which basically means hurt people to whom you like to attribute your anger. If you could have given the politicians who voted for this law, and the voters who voted for them, this headline they would have said "who cares if child molesters are homeless," then tune you out as you explain that it's impossible to keep track of homeless child molesters so you'll never know where they are.

It's the same reason that you can't reform the prison system from anything other than a university that gives a PhD in violent crime. If you try to tell people how horrible prisons are they respond "duh! It's prison, it's not supposed to be nice."

People just like the idea that you can solve problems by hurting people, breaking things, and taking them both away. It's why people like to watch 24.

Fairly warped holiday though.

Fairly warped holiday though.

Why? Nobody else around -- in fact they took pains to ensure that by going way out in the boonies. Are you seriously saying that simple nudity is warped?

no, nudity with your parents and siblings in abundance is rather warped.

Would you do it?

I think the way we currently treat "sex offenders" will go down as one of the great moral failings of our time. The term is NOT synonymous with "child molester" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender> and, according to both Wikipedia and Benjamin Radford <http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060516_predator_panic.html>, the reoffense rate is much lower than commonly assumed. More importantly, if a person is determined to be a serious threat to others, he should remain in prison or treatment. If not, he should be allowed to rebuild his life. We can't have this limbo status, where the released offender can't find a place to live and, in some states, can't even use a public hurricane shelter!

BTW, molestation by strangers is rare. Most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by family or close acquaintances.

no, nudity with your parents and siblings in abundance is rather warped.

Would you do it?

Not me personally, but I'm not a...wait for it...nudist.

I think obsessive puritanism about something as natural and ubiquitous as the skin we were born in is more warped. I'm not advocating nudity everywhere, and perhaps it's because the UK isn't long on lots of wide open spaces...and not short on uptightness (no offense, just an observation)...that you think that way.

no, nudity with your parents and siblings in abundance is rather warped.

Would you do it?

I would and I have.
They're your family, what's wrong with being naked around them?
When I was smaller, we would go to vacation on "FKK" beaches and camping grounds, basically the German version of nudist camps, only with less of a stigma. It's a pretty normal thing to do.
Also, I used to go to a Sauna with my family... would you usually sit in there all on your own to ensure nobody sees you naked?

I wear a bathing costume on such occasions.

Nudity is for married couples etc.

Not all and sundry.

I wear a bathing costume on such occasions.

Nudity is for married couples etc.

Not all and sundry.

What occasions?
In a Sauna?
Are you kidding??? Seriously???









My instinctive reaction is incredulous laughter, but actually that's quite sad.
Very sad.

Other wise I'd be residing at "Her Majesty's pleasure".

If you're alone or with significant other then It's OK.

E.g. in the Higlands of Scotland.

Other wise I'd be residing at "Her Majesty's pleasure".

If you're alone or with significant other then It's OK.

E.g. in the Higlands of Scotland.

Nonsense.
You can be naked around anyone you choose to, provided they agree. Why should people still be forced to submit to such artificial and pointless Victorian prudery?

It's the law.

And that way, sex feels more mischevious. :D

We put down rabid animals, why not disfuntional people?

It's the law.

And that way, sex feels more mischevious.

What is? To wear unnecessary clothing in a Sauna? Having to be dressed at all time in one's own home? Not being allowed to go to FKK beaches?

Weird laws you got there. Can you back up those claims?

At Widemouth Bay the Police were sent to prevent a nudist beach.

no, nudity with your parents and siblings in abundance is rather warped.

Really?

We're talking about small children here. You're honestly claiming that when you were, say, four, you cared deeply about preserving your modesty in front of your parents and siblings?

Because if so, you're different from every child around that age I've ever encountered.

At Widemouth Bay the Police were sent to prevent a nudist beach.

Link?
And as far as I know, there are other nudist beaches in the UK, are they all illegal, then?

no, but by about 8 I was.

At 4 I was busy learning to read (I read Shakespeare's Richard III at 7, my childhood was therefore not typical)

Law creates homeless parolees, report says (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080222-9999-1n22offender.html)



There is much more to the article, this is just a snippet.

This is one of those situations where people voted for a law because it was "tough" on sex offenders, without really worrying about whether the law would actually have a beneficial effect or might backfire.

Perhaps we can give them life in prison. Sex offenders, rapists and especially child molesters, can not be cured so why the hell don't we just make the minimum sentence for those crimes life in prison. Then they wouldn't have to worry about a place to live. Three squares and a cot are a lot better than living on the streets.

Hey, if this article was intended to generate sympathy for those slime, I'm sorry but my heart pumps purple panther piss for them.

And as far as I know, there are other nudist beaches in the UK, are they all illegal, then?

Probably somewhere in Britain's Puritanical laws.

We've had laws that ban eating Mince Pies on Christmas day for Pity's sake!

Anyway, show me one country where a person can walk down a street attired as when they were born.

no, but by about 8 I was.

At 4 I was busy learning to read (I read Shakespeare's Richard III at 7, my childhood was therefore not typical)

That's nice. I was also a prodigy, but I was definitely a prodigy who ran around naked like other kids for the first six or seven years of my life. Which is also what those little kids did on their vacation.

Anyway, show me one country where a person can walk down a street attired as when they were born.

*sigh*
Which part of "You can be naked around anyone you choose to, provided they agree" didn't you get?

Here's a bit of UK history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudism#United_Kingdom).

I wear a bathing costume on such occasions.

Nudity is for married couples etc.

Not all and sundry.

Wow. Truly sad.

*sigh*
Which part of "You can be naked around anyone you choose to, provided they agree" didn't you get?

Here's a bit of UK history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudism#United_Kingdom).

Wow! Someone should start another "Would you go naked in public?" thread. Yes, I would and have. :)

I think decency bars me from Nudity.

If you saw me you'd appreciate why!

Perhaps we can give them life in prison. Sex offenders, rapists and especially child molesters, can not be cured so why the hell don't we just make the minimum sentence for those crimes life in prison. Then they wouldn't have to worry about a place to live. Three squares and a cot are a lot better than living on the streets.

First of all, the category of sex offender includes a wide range of offenses for which a lifetime sentence is simply disproportionate to the point of absurdity.

Second, you really want to spend your tax dollars feeding and housing for life everyone that commits any kind of sex crime?

The laws on sex offenses are already extremely tough. Unless you really are going to make every sex offense life without parole, you are going to have to deal with the need to rehabilitate sex offenders and deter re-offending.

Also, if you make the penalties for a sex offense too steep, then you will have trouble getting convictions. You end up with jury nullification because the jury doesn't agree with the lifetime without parole sentence. That is one of the reasons why many anti-rape advocates do not support the death penalty for rape -- we used to have it, and we still had rape, but we had less convictions.

Hey, if this article was intended to generate sympathy for those slime, I'm sorry but my heart pumps purple panther piss for them.

This article has nothing to do with sympathy for sex offenders, but rather a condemnation of a policy that is counter-productive. If the law ends up making sex offender more likely to re-offend, it isn't a very good law.

Personally I think what should happen is the punishment for sex offence should be having your sexuality chemically removed using hormone suppresants, much like the ones many Catholic priests use voluntarilly. They're safe, they're effective, and in many cases, they can help us bring these people back in to the community, especially if it's largely a mental health issue with little outside character flaw. And as long as the side effects aren't too malicious, it won't be cruel and unusual.

Chemical castration is an idea that sounds good and tough to some, but actually doesn't work very well.

Sex crimes are rarely about simple sexual desire. Elementary psychology tells us that there are many other reasons why offenders commit sex crimes. So reducing sex drive does not solve the problem. In reality, sexual assaults are about violence, power and the humiliation of a survivor or victim. Unfortunately one can carry out these kind of crimes regardless of whether one's genitalia work:

Castration isn't likely to stop a sex offender from preying on people. It will only change the way these predators go about their crimes. As Florida prosecutor Jerry Burford told the St. Petersburg Times: "I get a lot of people who are impotent that still commit sexual battery. It's not their gonads that cause them to commit sexual battery. It's their heads."link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/2001-09-04-wickham.htm)

you really want to spend your tax dollars feeding and housing for life everyone that commits any kind of sex crime?


OK you win. Death penalty. Oh, one appeal within 30 days and execution by hanging or firing squad withing 90 days. :rolleyes:

If the law ends up making sex offender more likely to re-offend, it isn't a very good law.

It isn't the law that makes them more likely to re-offend? Whatever the hell happened to individual responsibility? L These folks have a choice and if they make the wrong choice why do we insist on placing the blame on the system? The system didn’t cause their problem; they did by committing the crime in the first place.

It isn't the law that makes them more likely to re-offend? Whatever the hell happened to individual responsibility?

They're responsible for their own actions. But their actions may still be influenced by other factors.

It isn't the law that makes them more likely to re-offend? Whatever the hell happened to individual responsibility? L These folks have a choice and if they make the wrong choice why do we insist on placing the blame on the system? The system didn’t cause their problem; they did by committing the crime in the first place.

Of course when the crime is completely unrelated to sexual acts such as getting caught peeing in the public with your thing hanging out, or the prosecutor decided to slap on the Sex Offender label "just in case," would that still make it the defendant's fault?

When you can be labeled a Sex Offender on a prosecutorial whim or some unbelievable technicality, all of a sudden it's not just molesters and rapists who can get the stigma. And like the death penalty, there's a very good probability that someone innocent was nailed anyways.

It isn't the law that makes them more likely to re-offend? Whatever the hell happened to individual responsibility? L These folks have a choice and if they make the wrong choice why do we insist on placing the blame on the system? The system didn’t cause their problem; they did by committing the crime in the first place.

:headbang:

Of course those that commit sex crimes are responsible for doing so and should be punished accordingly. No one suggested otherwise.

The question is shouldn't we pass laws to try to make it less likely ourselves, our neighbors, our children, etc. will be victims of sex crime, rather than passing laws that make such offenses more likely?

It isn't the law that makes them more likely to re-offend? Whatever the hell happened to individual responsibility? L These folks have a choice and if they make the wrong choice why do we insist on placing the blame on the system? The system didn’t cause their problem; they did by committing the crime in the first place.

True. It certainly is their responsibility. That's what they get convicted for, and that's what they do time for.

However, wouldn't you agree that prevention is better than punishment?
What do you gain by making re-offending more likely?
Sure they will get punished again when found re-offending, but until then, why giving them a harder time than you would everyone else, ostracise them and make a normal life nearly impossible for them?
Putting unnecessary stress on an indivdual who might not react to it in any normal way is just asking for more trouble. And pointing the finger afterwards is not going to undo the harm, now, is it?

OK you win. Death penalty. Oh, one appeal within 30 days and execution by hanging or firing squad withing 90 days. :rolleyes:

So you would issue the death penalty to someone who had a piss in public and was accidentally seen by a child?

So you would issue the death penalty to someone who had a piss in public and was accidentally seen by a child?

And also, to the 18 year old guy who had sex with the girl who was 15 years 364 days old. :p

I don't know how I feel about serious sex offenders being "reintergrated into society". As much as I support rehabilitation, I have to be honest. I also think that peodophiles should be a lot more than 2000 feet from schools.

For them, if they are truly sex offenders I feel little remorse. However, I also fear for those inocents who might be harmed by thm.

But, if they REALLY aren't fit to be placed into society, shouldn't they be kept in prison?

Here's what I don't understand: if someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to come within 2000 feet of a child without raping them, why are we letting them out of prison?

It just seems rather obvious to me that either someone is safe to be released or they are not, and if the latter, they shouldn't freaking be released, and if the former, we need to leave them alone and let them get on with their lives.
Agreed.

If the problem is that the current punishments aren't stopping these people, then that's a problem in itself, and trying to just move the released to a different area isn't gonna solve it. If the current punishments aren't working, they need to be changed. If they need harsher punishments, sentence them to hard labour, instead of imprisonment. If they need treatment, find out how to fix these people and do it.

Personally, I think the proper response would be a combination of the two. Sentence them to a certain set amount of time of imprisonment and/or hard labour, and then after that time is up focus on rehabilitating them, then let them go when you have reason to believe they're safe to be let back into society.

Those poor, poor sex offenders. If only we understood their pain.

Ooo! I've got a brilliant idea. It will eliminate the risk of reoffenders as well as solve the sex offender homelessness crisis.

Execute all sex offenders.

Quick fact: 0% of all executed sex offenders have ever reoffended.
And what if the executed sex offender didn't offend in the first place?

Also, as someone else pointed out, urinating in public can be classified as a sexual offense; I guess having urinated on the grass that was to the side of a highway road (because there weren't any washrooms for a long distance) would get me killed, then?

Just kill them or feed them to pigs or something...

It isn't the law that makes them more likely to re-offend? Whatever the hell happened to individual responsibility? L These folks have a choice and if they make the wrong choice why do we insist on placing the blame on the system? The system didn’t cause their problem; they did by committing the crime in the first place.

Let me put it this way. It's like a drug conviction, with laws preventing you from ever holding a job ever again, no matter how minor, just like how sex offenders are catch all terms for every sort of conviction including up to teenagers (1 year under legal term).

Things like this prevent people from actually making an honest living or make an honest living exceedingly difficult to the point where crime is the more viable option.

If you want to keep people from re-offending, you have two choices. Make every crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, including jaywalking and littering, since the kind of noodniks who propose these are closet draconians anyway.

Or, you can actually make it so that the laws don't keep those who have served their convictions can actually reintegrate into society.

If the laws don't keep people from re-offending once convictions are served, then obviously something is wrong with them and they need to be reworked.

But I have this suspicion you couldn't care less about reintegration, and more about making big body counts.

But, if they REALLY aren't fit to be placed into society, shouldn't they be kept in prison?

no

people are put in prison based on being convicted of specific crimes that carry specific sentences. they are not kept in there due to "unfitness".

no

people are put in prison based on being convicted of specific crimes that carry specific sentences. they are not kept in there due to "unfitness".

People are put into prison, in part, to keep them away from society. If they are not able to mix with society, they should remain in prison.

Perhaps we can give them life in prison. Sex offenders, rapists and especially child molesters, can not be cured so why the hell don't we just make the minimum sentence for those crimes life in prison. Then they wouldn't have to worry about a place to live. Three squares and a cot are a lot better than living on the streets.

Hey, if this article was intended to generate sympathy for those slime, I'm sorry but my heart pumps purple panther piss for them.

And this is the problem with conservative politics and philosophy. They see that there is some overlap between liberal politics and notions of sympathy and think that it's all touchy-feely when they want to be angry and hurtful. What they don't want to be is practical.

The issue isn't "Oh, those poor homeless child molesters..." It's "holy shit, we've got homeless child molesters prowling the neighborhood who can kidnap children, kill them, then disappear into the woodwork because we don't know where they live because they don't live anywhere. If only we weren't such arrogant assholes who were so intent on finding good excuses to hurt people that we never stopped to think about what would make our children safe. Quick! before we consciously realize that this is our fault, lets blame liberals for opposing the death penalty."

Those poor, poor sex offenders. If only we understood their pain.

Ooo! I've got a brilliant idea. It will eliminate the risk of reoffenders as well as solve the sex offender homelessness crisis.

Execute all sex offenders.

Quick fact: 0% of all executed sex offenders have ever reoffended.
Quick fact: 0% of all executed wrongly convicted innocent people have ever had the chance of being released and living out the rest of their lives.

but hey, what do you care about protecting the innocent, eh?

Pedo! :p


lawl.

You know, when I first wrote that line saying 'how I handle my kids' I thought about adding 'pardon the pun' but I just couldn't bring myself to go there.

Nice to know somebody's around who will ;)

WHAT???
Please tell me you're joking... you can get registered as a sex offender in the States cause a kid sees you taking a piss???


I like to think that generally, a prosecutor would be unlikely to demand it if he or she has any sense of justice. Problem is in many jurisdictions District Attorneys are elected and nothing looks great on an election year like a long list of evil nasty sex offenders nailed by this dudley do-right DA. Since people generally tune out what the S.O. has to say, the fact that it was done unfairly gets passed over.

Agreed.

If the problem is that the current punishments aren't stopping these people, then that's a problem in itself, and trying to just move the released to a different area isn't gonna solve it. If the current punishments aren't working, they need to be changed. If they need harsher punishments, sentence them to hard labour, instead of imprisonment. If they need treatment, find out how to fix these people and do it.

Personally, I think the proper response would be a combination of the two. Sentence them to a certain set amount of time of imprisonment and/or hard labour, and then after that time is up focus on rehabilitating them, then let them go when you have reason to believe they're safe to be let back into society.

It won't work.

The guy I refered to earlier had done some prison time (not on a sex offense) but had a cellmate who was a serious pedophile. I mean this was exactly the kind of guy who is the very image of the worst you can imagine in terms of a child predator. He collected magazine clippings with pictured of kids on them.. everything. Sickening. Here's the thing. This guy had been in prison before and was just wating to get out so he could go afer another kid. he made it clear that he had every intention of doing it AGAIN.

Know what that tells me? It tells me this guy needs treatment because nobody in their right mind talks like that. Hate him if you want to but if you are honestly and sincerely interested in solving the problem and protecting the kids in a system that values justice, then the only way to go is to get this guy whatever kind of treatment in whatever kind of institution it takes to cure it. Adding years to prison terms or hard labor will do NOTHING.

I like to think that generally, a prosecutor would be unlikely to demand it if he or she has any sense of justice. Problem is in many jurisdictions District Attorneys are elected and nothing looks great on an election year like a long list of evil nasty sex offenders nailed by this dudley do-right DA. Since people generally tune out what the S.O. has to say, the fact that it was done unfairly gets passed over.

There's something seriously wrong with that system. Much as I believe in democracy, nobody involved in the judicative should ever be elected.
The judicative needs to be independent in all aspects, otherwise it will not work.


<snip> Adding years to prison terms or hard labor will do NOTHING.

Well, yes and no.
If you can rehabilitate a person, by all means, do so.
If you can't rehabilitate a violent offender of any kind, by all means keep him/her away from society.

Yes, but the failing comes in that in the case I described, there was clearly no serious attempt at rehabilitating him. We can assume we will be required to attend therapy upon his release as a condition of his parole, but it seems to me what this person needs is much more intense than that.

True.
I think all kinds of violent crimes need intense psychotherapy as well as jail time. Giving them just one won't change a thing, they'll be as dangerous when they come out as they were when they went in. Possibly even more dangerous.

There's something seriously wrong with that system. Much as I believe in democracy, nobody involved in the judicative should ever be elected.
The judicative needs to be independent in all aspects, otherwise it will not work.


Agreed.


Well, yes and no.
If you can rehabilitate a person, by all means, do so.
If you can't rehabilitate a violent offender of any kind, by all means keep him/her away from society.

Yes, but the failing comes in that in the case I described, there was clearly no serious attempt at rehabilitating him. We can assume we will be required to attend therapy upon his release as a condition of his parole, but it seems to me what this person needs is much more intense than that.

The military is always in need of realistic target dummies for live fire exercises.

:confused:.......................................................................:sniper:

Law creates homeless parolees, report says (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080222-9999-1n22offender.html)



There is much more to the article, this is just a snippet.

This is one of those situations where people voted for a law because it was "tough" on sex offenders, without really worrying about whether the law would actually have a beneficial effect or might backfire.
Yet another excellent reason why sex offenders should never be out of prison.

Yet another excellent reason why sex offenders should never be out of prison.

Or we could, you know, change a bad law that causes this nonsense. My brother is, by definition, a sex offender, yet to keep him in prison for life (which would be about 40 years) for his crime is absurd.

Yet another excellent reason why sex offenders should never be out of prison.

Either you haven't been following the thread, or you're a perfect example of exactly the sort of person who is part of the problem.

Well, if you are going to get fascist, I say you should go all the way and either sentence them to life, execute them, or deport them to a special facility for sex offenders in Alaska.

Either that, or you accept them in society after you liberate them. That kind of system just recognizes openly the failure of any possible rehabilitation by your prison system.

Either you haven't been following the thread, or you're a perfect example of exactly the sort of person who is part of the problem.

Knowing Bottle, I'd assume the first...

Knowing Bottle, I'd assume the first...
Nah, to NB I'm sure I'm "part of the problem." I usually am, in his view, and it doesn't particularly bother me.

I don't believe in releasing sex offenders from prison. Of course, I also believe that our current standards for what is and is not a sex offense are deeply fucked up, frequently sexist, and very often profoundly racist in practice, and I suppose I could have gone to the trouble of outlining precisely who is and is not a sex offender in my personal world view. But I didn't feel like it. And still don't.

I don't believe in releasing sex offenders from prison. Of course, I also believe that our current standards for what is and is not a sex offense are deeply fucked up, frequently sexist, and very often profoundly racist in practice, and I suppose I could have gone to the trouble of outlining precisely who is and is not a sex offender in my personal world view. But I didn't feel like it. And still don't.

But therein lies the problem. The term "sex offender" is a term of art, it has a legal meaning. If you wish to use a meaning other than its technical, legal one, you should at least point that out.

If you say "all sex offenders should get life in prison" but don't bother to qualify that you mean sex offenders as you define, not sex offenders as the law defines, how are we supposed to know that?

Nah, to NB I'm sure I'm "part of the problem." I usually am, in his view, and it doesn't particularly bother me.

I don't believe in releasing sex offenders from prison. Of course, I also believe that our current standards for what is and is not a sex offense are deeply fucked up, frequently sexist, and very often profoundly racist in practice, and I suppose I could have gone to the trouble of outlining precisely who is and is not a sex offender in my personal world view. But I didn't feel like it. And still don't.


Well, then yes Id agree with you, if we change our definition of a "sex offender" to be rapists and child predators and not much else. Ive read enough of your posts to know you probably dont agree with sentencing the 20 year old who boffed his consenting 17 year old girlfriend to life in prison.

Nah, to NB I'm sure I'm "part of the problem." I usually am, in his view, and it doesn't particularly bother me.

I don't believe in releasing sex offenders from prison. Of course, I also believe that our current standards for what is and is not a sex offense are deeply fucked up, frequently sexist, and very often profoundly racist in practice, and I suppose I could have gone to the trouble of outlining precisely who is and is not a sex offender in my personal world view. But I didn't feel like it. And still don't.

Well, I would agree that violent sex offenders most certainly should be kept at a safe distance from the rest of society. But ever since I learned that pissing in public can in fact get you registered as a sex offender, and even as a child molester, I've become a bit careful with swiping statements...

Could we not use them to colonise somewhere?

Antarctica, Greenland, South Georgia, Australia's desert etc.

We put down rabid animals, why not disfuntional people?

Um because they are PEOPLE? :headbang:
And where does one stop with the definition of dysfunctional, with misspellers perhaps?

I was just talking about this at lunch. And I see the answers here are often just as ill-conceived. The goal is reduce sex offenses, to protect the innocent. I don't give a shit how we do it. Honestly. I don't care if it requires giving flowers to them as they leave prison or scarlet letters. We've proven that scarlet letters doesn't work with this law, and we already know that flowers don't work, so how about we go back to therapy WHICH did work, and revising the term limits so that those who are so dangerous that we have to be afraid they'll be near a park aren't running around our streets.

Punsih them for their crimes then do your best to fix them and let them go. This nonsense about admitting they don't care that the current law increases the number of sex offenses is admitting they care more about punishing than they do about protecting children.

If protecting people from real sex offenders is our goal, then it's obvious this law is the problem, not the solution.

Also, I think it should be made illegal to create a law that requires a greater effort to change in one direction (i.e. repeal or decrease/redefine penalties) than it does to change it the other direction (i.e. increase penalties). It's a clear bias designed to undermine any further debate and advantage adminstrations that want to make the law harsher and disadvantage administrations that want to make the law just.

Nah, to NB I'm sure I'm "part of the problem." I usually am, in his view, and it doesn't particularly bother me.

I don't believe in releasing sex offenders from prison. Of course, I also believe that our current standards for what is and is not a sex offense are deeply fucked up, frequently sexist, and very often profoundly racist in practice, and I suppose I could have gone to the trouble of outlining precisely who is and is not a sex offender in my personal world view. But I didn't feel like it. And still don't.

Not to snipe, but that strikes me as hypocritical given some of the arguments I've seen you make in the past, railing people for not being specific or precise in their answers.

I was just talking about this at lunch. And I see the answers here are often just as ill-conceived. The goal is reduce sex offenses, to protect the innocent. I don't give a shit how we do it. Honestly. I don't care if it requires giving flowers to them as they leave prison or scarlet letters. We've proven that scarlet letters doesn't work with this law, and we already know that flowers don't work, so how about we go back to therapy WHICH did work, and revising the term limits so that those who are so dangerous that we have to be afraid they'll be near a park aren't running around our streets.

Punsih them for their crimes then do your best to fix them and let them go. This nonsense about admitting they don't care that the current law increases the number of sex offenses is admitting they care more about punishing than they do about protecting children.

If protecting people from real sex offenders is our goal, then it's obvious this law is the problem, not the solution.
I agree, but I have a hard time stating a definitive position on what I think should be done.

On the one hand, I consider shunting offenders after they finish their sentences into what amounts to an additional, indefinite period of semi-confinement is or should be unconstitutional. But then again, I can see reasonable arguments for certain predatory crimes being subject to either life imprisonment or a certain kind of "perpetual parole supervision", depending on expert assessments of risk to society from the offender. Still, again, it seems obvious to me that the current laws are based not on realistic risk assessments but on political pandering to public emotion. The results shown in the OP article clearly show they are counter-productive to public safety. So there can be no question they must be changed. But does that mean the public doesn't have a right to know if a predator is living in their neighborhood?

Maybe they don't have such a right. The state has no right under the law to punish someone for something they haven't done yet, so why should the state be able to grant such a right or power to private citizens by, essentially, pointing to the predator and saying "there he is"? Yes, someone is a predator -- but do we get to make them a pariah and keep punishing them over and over because of that, even if they never actually do another predatory thing again?

Especially when we consider the "witch hunt" mentality attached to ideas of "sex offender" (what they are, what to do with them), it seems easy to say that only professional authorities -- the police, parole boards, state-appointed therapists, etc -- should have access to info about released sex offenders.

On the other hand, when we look at heartwrenching cases of repeat offenses committed by released predatory offenders who slipped through the registration system, it's hard to fault private citizens who want full information so they can protect themselves, rather than rely blindly on the authorities to take care of them.

For myself, I would rather not have that info open to the public, and instead would just maintain my own level of self-defense awareness -- on the grounds that I can't assume there are no predators in my neighborhood just because there are no registered ones. That kind of uncertainty does not bother me.

But I have a hard time asking other people to be as sanguine about that kind of danger as I am.

I agree, but I have a hard time stating a definitive position on what I think should be done.

On the one hand, I consider shunting offenders after they finish their sentences into what amounts to an additional, indefinite period of semi-confinement is or should be unconstitutional. But then again, I can see reasonable arguments for certain predatory crimes being subject to either life imprisonment or a certain kind of "perpetual parole supervision", depending on expert assessments of risk to society from the offender. Still, again, it seems obvious to me that the current laws are based not on realistic risk assessments but on political pandering to public emotion. The results shown in the OP article clearly show they are counter-productive to public safety. So there can be no question they must be changed. But does that mean the public doesn't have a right to know if a predator is living in their neighborhood?

Maybe they don't have such a right. The state has no right under the law to punish someone for something they haven't done yet, so why should the state be able to grant such a right or power to private citizens by, essentially, pointing to the predator and saying "there he is"? Yes, someone is a predator -- but do we get to make them a pariah and keep punishing them over and over because of that, even if they never actually do another predatory thing again?

Especially when we consider the "witch hunt" mentality attached to ideas of "sex offender" (what they are, what to do with them), it seems easy to say that only professional authorities -- the police, parole boards, state-appointed therapists, etc -- should have access to info about released sex offenders.

On the other hand, when we look at heartwrenching cases of repeat offenses committed by released predatory offenders who slipped through the registration system, it's hard to fault private citizens who want full information so they can protect themselves, rather than rely blindly on the authorities to take care of them.

For myself, I would rather not have that info open to the public, and instead would just maintain my own level of self-defense awareness -- on the grounds that I can't assume there are no predators in my neighborhood just because there are no registered ones. That kind of uncertainty does not bother me.

But I have a hard time asking other people to be as sanguine about that kind of danger as I am.

I prettymuch agree with you.

The justification people use for releasing this info to the public is the Freedom of Information Act. If the police department knows it, you have a right to know it.

So basically if the police are going to keep track of these people at all, they have to make that info available to the public.

But what makes the whole thing B.S. in my book, in addition to the reasons you listed, is that this is the ONLY category of crime that gets published in this way. A convicted murderer could move in next door to you and you'd never know unless you specifically went down to the police station and asked. (Some jurisdictions require any convicted felons to at least inform local police that they live in the area when still under probation/parole.)

That's the strongest proof, IMHO, that this whole thing is, as you said, pandering to emotion.

Not to snipe, but that strikes me as hypocritical given some of the arguments I've seen you make in the past, railing people for not being specific or precise in their answers.
If I were interested in debating my views on the subject of what is or is not a sex offense, then I would have presented information on that topic. I'm not. So I didn't.

But what makes the whole thing B.S. in my book, in addition to the reasons you listed, is that this is the ONLY category of crime that gets published in this way. A convicted murderer could move in next door to you and you'd never know unless you specifically went down to the police station and asked. (Some jurisdictions require any convicted felons to at least inform local police that they live in the area when still under probation/parole.)

That's the strongest proof, IMHO, that this whole thing is, as you said, pandering to emotion.
I don't think that's "proof" of emotional pandering at all, considering that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is much higher than that for murderers. One could certainly argue that sex offenders are statistically more likely to re-offend, and therefore their cases should be monitored differently.

I'm not saying it's necessarily the right argument to make. Just that you don't have to appeal to emotion in order to do so.

I prettymuch agree with you.

The justification people use for releasing this info to the public is the Freedom of Information Act. If the police department knows it, you have a right to know it.

So basically if the police are going to keep track of these people at all, they have to make that info available to the public.

But what makes the whole thing B.S. in my book, in addition to the reasons you listed, is that this is the ONLY category of crime that gets published in this way. A convicted murderer could move in next door to you and you'd never know unless you specifically went down to the police station and asked. (Some jurisdictions require any convicted felons to at least inform local police that they live in the area when still under probation/parole.)

That's the strongest proof, IMHO, that this whole thing is, as you said, pandering to emotion.

What do you mean? I was molested as a child and, of course, it would have been so much better if she'd just stabbed me in the eye with a poolstick.

It is insteresting that only one of those would have her still being watched today. The law doesn't acknowledge that she was 13, also a long-term victim of molestation, and the fact that the stigma involved with what she did is the reason why her parents argued over getting her help to the point of divorce and she and her entire family were destroyed. And did destroyed her entire family help me one bit? Of course not. And it didn't prevent her from offending again. If that's what justice looks like, I'll take injustice.

I don't think that's "proof" of emotional pandering at all, considering that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is much higher than that for murderers. One could certainly argue that sex offenders are statistically more likely to re-offend, and therefore their cases should be monitored differently.

I'm not saying it's necessarily the right argument to make. Just that you don't have to appeal to emotion in order to do so.

I would point out though, that across the board sex crimes have almost the lowest recitivism rate after some form of therapy was commonly included as part of the sentencing.

I would expect murder to be the lowest crime to be repeated simply because typically, muderers spend the most time in prison by far and in some cases, are executed. I don't know what the average sentence is for a murderer (NA, TCT?) is but I'm guessing that at most a person can only re-offend once, maybe twice in an extreme example.

What do you mean? I was molested as a child and, of course, it would have been so much better if she'd just stabbed me in the eye with a poolstick.

It is insteresting that only one of those would have her still being watched today. The law doesn't acknowledge that she was 13, also a long-term victim of molestation, and the fact that the stigma involved with what she did is the reason why her parents argued over getting her help to the point of divorce and she and her entire family were destroyed. And did destroyed her entire family help me one bit? Of course not. And it didn't prevent her from offending again. If that's what justice looks like, I'll take injustice.

I'm not sure I follow... one of what?

I would expect murder to be the lowest crime to be repeated simply because typically, muderers spend the most time in prison by far and in some cases, are executed.It's been a while since I've looked at the data, but I believe the most widely accepted explanation for the low recidivism rate among murderers is simply that most murders are crimes of passion. Murderers are, with few exceptions, not career criminals.

I'm not sure I follow... one of what?

Molesting me or stabbing with a poolstick (in other words murdering me). If the girl who'd molested me had just murdered me, she would have no issues with sex offender lists. She'd be a free woman right now.

I'm not sure I follow... one of what?

Molesting me or stabbing with a poolstick (in other words murdering me). If the girl who'd molested me had just murdered me, she would have no issues with sex offender lists. She'd be a free woman right now. It was my intention to agree with you through sarcasm, but it appears to not have worked.

Molesting me or stabbing with a poolstick (in other words murdering me). If the girl who'd molested me had just murdered me, she would have no issues with sex offender lists. She'd be a free woman right now. It was my intention to agree with you through sarcasm, but it appears to not have worked.

DUH! Thanks :)

If your sarcasm was lost on me I assure you, the fault was not yours.

But I read once about a survey that indicated that the average person would prefer to live next door to a convicted murderer than a sex offender. I ascribe that, at least in part, to the emotional fanfare generated by the media on this.

Speaking of which, Fox News (for whom sex offenders are always a favorite fare) recently ran a story about some guy up in new England who hit the lottery and won a million dollars or something, but there was protesting because he's a registered sex offender.

Apparently he had 9 charges of indecent exposure back in the 70s and 80s.

Noteworthy points here:
-The registration of sex offenders didn't start until the mid 90s. That means this guy was grandfathered in.
-He has apparently not committed any more offenses since at least 1989 which his almost 20 years. Does that mean he has to be registered for life? For indecent exposure? (Keeping in mind most states have either a 10 year or lifetime registration, depending upon the details)
-Having gone nearly 20 years without any further trouble, doesn't that imply maybe he doesn't belong on that list?

And who the hell cares if he hit the lottery? Winning the lottery isn't a question of deserving even if we were equipped to judge.

But Fox News sure as hell won't turn down the chance to tell a sex offender story.

If you can't trust them around children, you can't trust them period. Lock 'em up.

Law creates homeless parolees, report says (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080222-9999-1n22offender.html)



There is much more to the article, this is just a snippet.

This is one of those situations where people voted for a law because it was "tough" on sex offenders, without really worrying about whether the law would actually have a beneficial effect or might backfire.

Not at all too surprising, I've always found that sex crimes laws are written and passed in very reactionary manners with no thought on the part of the legislators writing the laws nor for voters who vote on them in such cases, on the resultant effect of the laws... Stuff like this, as well as the Florida case which has resulted in two teens being classified as "sex offenders" with a tag-line of "Child Pornography" on their backs has proven to me that the normal procedure for laws/legislation needs to be seriously revamped for Sex Crimes situations, since it is apparent in this case that society is not capable of thinking straight.

These laws really amount to being exiled from the city... and we all know there has NEVER been a case of sex offenders moving around and being out of the watchful eye of the authorities.... :rolleyes:

Yep, isn't it great, they pass a law to protect the children, which effectively nullifies any benefit of the sex-offender registry by placing the offenders on the street and in parks where they can engage in their crimes without any oversight...

I'll say with absolute conviction, anyone who supports laws like this one, is aiding pedophiles in engaging in their crimes.

Not at all too surprising, I've always found that sex crimes laws are written and passed in very reactionary manners with no thought on the part of the legislators writing the laws nor for voters who vote on them in such cases, on the resultant effect of the laws... Stuff like this, as well as the Florida case which has resulted in two teens being classified as "sex offenders" with a tag-line of "Child Pornography" on their backs has proven to me that the normal procedure for laws/legislation needs to be seriously revamped for Sex Crimes situations, since it is apparent in this case that society is not capable of thinking straight.

Sex Offenders are the latest and so far most enduring Witch Hunt in the 21st century. The fact that so many things can get someone classified as a Sex Offender yet the general public's perception is "Sex Offender = Child Molester" is a very, very serious problem. If anything, similarly to Texas's brilliant proposed legislation to make child molestation a capital crime, this will only serve to drive the truly dangerous criminals underground and perhaps give them no incentive to hold back from murder altogether.

I'm a parent, I don't have the privilege of considering whether the man who raped the 11 year old girl is cured or not. It isn't my problem, what is my problem is keeping my children safe from harm. If I wanted to live where the risk was high regarding children endangerment I would move to crack alley frankly. But I carefully chose my neighborhood/school district for the safety factor involved.

I know that I have worked with adults who were molested as children and those scars last forever my friend. So as far as these poor bastards having issues finding a place to live, if it is forever they have problems it feels very just frankly. Isn't justice supposed to "feel good"?

This is one issue I am a mean bitch about and I don't owe any sympathy to anyone. I don't care if they are ill or not. They do not deserve the respect of living among the children of our society. Children are the most precious asset in our society, I don't want them exposed to sex offenders any more than I want them exposed to rabid dogs.

My responsibility is to children. You are free to feel responsible for the scum.

Bah, I have to go and it is a good thing. Please don't take this personally it isn't my intent to attack you as a person. Not much angers me but excusing these freaks does I'm sorry to say.
No, justice is supposed to do what's right. If what feels good is what matters to you, you might as well do drugs and make yourself "feel good" that way.

As for your insisting that child molestors are "the scum" while children are "the most precious" did it ever occur to you that that's only what your own evolutionarily inherited favourtism towards your own offspring inclines you to think? Both your children and child molestors are human beings, after all. Now I do agree that child molestation is a terrible crime, but it's not like children are harmless towards other children. How much less traumatic do you think bullying is than molestation? Back in grade 6 when a few people took stuff out of the teacher's purse and put it on my desk to make it look like I did it, when the teacher came in not one of the people in the room told her I didn't, and while somehow the teacher knew I didn't, I realized that if she didn't know this, the whole rest of the class (the majority) would've gotten me in trouble for something I didn't do was something that made me hate anything to do with "the majority" in general, made me want to avoid whatever was popular at each respective time and as such I deliberately missed out on many things I later realized I might've enjoyed. Those scars last forever my friend, and the fact that they were given by other children didn't mean they were small.