There are prisons all over the country. Why would you hand the biggest city in the country over to criminals?
So your opinion is that punishment should continue until they die?
Wanting to know is not the same as needing to know or having the right to know. These people do have some rights despite their crimes, and “I wanna know if I should flee the neighborhood” is not a sufficient reason to violate those. If you’re in danger it’s another story, but most of these people won’t offend again. That makes me very cautious about taking away their privacy and stigmatizing them further.
And yes, I’m also uncomfortable with sex offender registries and the methods that are being used to keep these people in mental facilities indefinitely. I think our society really doesn’t know how to deal with these people, and as a result some understandable concerns have led to a bizarre and inconsistent system where people are kept in “treatment” because the prison system can’t punish them anymore but nobody knows if they’re still a threat for psychological reasons, and where we warn their neighbors because we think maybe we should let them get on with their lives but we don’t have proof they’re not dangerous. I don’t think this really works for anyone (except perhaps the very nervous, and politicians who love to look tough on crime). I’m doubtful that this reduces crime and I’m also doubtful it cures anyone of anything. So when you say we should expand registries to murder and arson and other things, I have to ask what you really think is going to be accomplished. Thanks to things like mandatory minimum sentencing we have more people in jail for longer than ever. Now we need to keep track of even more felons after they get out? Are we in that much danger?
I’d rather not. Registries effectively impose a life sentence on someone who’s already done their time. Either they’ve served their sentence and been rehabilitated, or they should still be in prison.
What? Define “rehabilitated” and explain how you would determine if it has been achieved.
Because the important thing is that once someone has served his sentence, he continues to be ostracized; because we don’t want him to reintegrate back into his community, get a job, or otherwise become a productive member of society again.
It’s up to the state to define it and make that determination. I know these threads always include a rehabilitation vs. punishment discussion, but I think reasonable people would agree that prison is supposed to accomplish both in most cases. The Bureau of Prisons says its mission is “to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.” Helping offenders become law-abiding citizens could be fairly summed up as rehabilitating them.
I wouldn’t mind living next door to a serial killer. By most accounts, they’re quiet, keep to themselves.
And they aren’t known for killing their neighbors, are they? Isn’t it generally prostitutes and other strangers?
You might be right, I don’t know. That doesn’t mean I’d be remotely comfortable living near a serial killer and I’d really want to know if one moved into my neighborhood. If having a serious felon registry saves only one person, I think it’s worth it. Yeah, some of the things about the sex offender registry I don’t care much for (ie the residency restrictions are thought to increase, not decrease, recividism, yet politicians keep passing them anyway); but I still want to know if some rapist is living next door to me. I’d want to know if an arsonist was living near me as well so I can avoid having my house burned down. I don’t see why people here are so against registering murderers or arsonists. If you can prohibit DUI committers from driving (which is as bad or worse than dealing with an online list), why can’t you register murderers or arsonists? I’d much rather associate with a guy convicted of drunk driving than a guy who’s been convicted of bank robbery, arson or murder.
What exactly would you do if someone on your registry moved into your neighborhood?
Stay away from them so they’d have less of a chance of harming me.
Sex offenders generally commit crimes against their family and not neighbors, yet I’d still want to know if an RSO moved into my area.
That’s rather vague. Would you move away? Cross to the other side of the street if you see them? Pretend they don’t exist if they say, “Hi, neighbor!”? Shop at a different grocery store if they shop where you do?
Would you tell your neighbors?
When was the last time anybody convicted of serial murders got out of prison? Also: Google.
I’m not comfortable with that type of reasoning.
I think we listed a bunch of reasons. I know I did.
Because you get your drivers’ license from the government, and stopping people who drive drunk from driving addresses the problem in a specific way. Telling people there’s a murderer or arsonist or bank robber in the neighborhood doesn’t really do anything.
Google what, exactly? “Google, where is Jeff Dahmer living these days”? “Google, search for convicted murderers in Sunny Woods subdivision, Memphis, Tennessee”?
Actual serial murderers are quite rare, and their being released from prison is rarer still.
[QUOTE=JessicaHoyt]
If having a serious felon registry saves only one person, I think it’s worth it.
[/quote]
Even if it causes more than one murder, through preventing felons from becoming part of society again? There are factors other than innate compulsion that lead to crime…poverty and alienation are on that list.
Well, DUI is directly related to driving. Murder and arson have nothing to do with buying and living in a house.
If you could articulate a concrete benefit to society, you’d be more persuasive in your argument. I get that you’d want to know, but how does that help anyone?
Rehabilitated-schmehabilitated. Once the sentence is up, people should be released, end of story.
While rehabilitation/reform is an important part of deciding how we treat those in prison, lack thereof should in no way extend a person’s punishment.
You can look up the names of your neighbors. Or I believe you can find out who owns homes near you and then look up their names. Or you could probably do any number of things with Google Alerts and the name of your town, for example.
Norway’s prison system does this, and it’s great. Their sentences are statutorily limited to 21 years, pending rehabilitation. Really, the rehab clause is just there in case a really insane motherfucker does something really insane (see: Anders Behring Breivik).