From what I know of that story, and it isn’t much, that was an ugly riot. That prison has been shut down since then.
For all you folks eager to form to form lynch mobs, you’re going to have a busy time being heroes. If you intend to crucify all Registered Sex Offenders, then why not start in Los Angeles county? You’ll find over 11,000 peolple to drag into the streets and decapitate.
Is this really what you folks want to do?
I watched an interview with Jetseta’s mother on TV last night. She says she didn’t know that the man who killed her daughter (a family friend) was a registered sex offender. Made me wonder about the purpose of the list. Are parents supposed to check it regularly, see if they recognize anyone they know? And if they do, isn’t it logical to think that if they’ve been released, someone in authority determined that they were no danger to the community?
They need to be better monitored when they’re released. If Martha Stewart has to wear an electronic bracelet, why don’t they?
If they can’t be cured, then keep the sonsabitches locked the fuck up.
Have a look at the list. Of the first 100 people listed in LA 33 are in violation of their parole agreement and they don’t know wher they are or presumably what name they are using.
How many times has someone actually spoken those words to you?
This is the first time I’ve tried to access the RSO list for Iowa. Apparently I need to know the name and either the birthdate, Social Security number, or address.
Another site says there are 3 RSOs in my general area, and for $10 they’ll tell me who they are.
How is that helpful to the general public?
Auntie Pam, sounds rather FUBAR. I just checked the NYS list, and it doesn’t have a working search by county/zip code, but I can see the list of Level three offenders in the state if I want to go through by name. May I suggest that you kvetch to your state legislators to get the list made a bit more user friendly?
On the other hand - I have been (and remain) skeptical of the utility of such lists anyways. I believe that they serve to address a percieved need for further action by the authorities without actually offering much of substance.
For my own edification, do you have a cite for this? I’ve heard that the recidivism rate for sex offenders isn’t all that high and would like to have some facts or studies on which to base such claims.
Of course, I have to wonder if any rate of recividism greater than 0 might justify not letting people who are convicted of sex offenses against children out of prison.
That’s what we always hear, but what about the twenty-three years the guy served the first time?
Not singling you out Finn, just wondering where the disconnect is between “molesters are the lowest life form in prison and the other inmates will take care of them” and “another paroled molester strikes again” eh?
No cites here, so I’m shooting from the hip. But, based on the “rumor mill” and an occasional news story, it looks like the justice system is broken if repeat offenders are turned loose so often, and they keep going back to their old ways. If the law is broken, then parents have the duty to protect or avenge their children. The cause of vigilantism is a lack of law, a lack of justice. People take the law into their own hands when they see no other way.
Let’s use this extreme example: Let’s say one of these offenders kidnapped and killed my sister or niece. Let’s also say he had a lot of priors, was grinning and smirking, with a “can’t touch this” attitude. The only safe place for him would be in prison, and I would be looking for him.
I’m all for the law and due process, but it has to work. Too often it seems to protect the bad guy and cheat the victims. There should be no parole or phony “rehabilitation” for repeat sex offenders.
Minor hijack. In the interests of the boards motto, although sex offenders are less popular, they are not in much more danger in GP than other offenders. Typically, sex offenders may be pressed for sex more and they may, if really weak, get beaten up some more at the start, but they are not specifically targetted by the inmate population in 95% of the cases. A particularly heinous offense, with high notoriety, may prompt corrections officials to isolate the offender in protective control, but that is relatively rare. OTOH, for female offenders, I can say that this is much different for child sex offenders (yes, they exist, more frequently than you would think) and child murderers. My husband has told me about some notable cases where a woman has hurt.murdered a child and the other inmates literally tried to stone her to death. He knew of two cases where this happened and one woman, who murdered her two children, has been in a protective custody status for the 14 years she has been in prison.
BTW- information comes from Hubby who works in a prison with 2700+ inmates, 1000 of which are sex offenders.
Oh, and for the record, there is no treatment model that has been scientifically proven to reduce recidivism with sex offenders. However, against popular beleif, sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rates amongst most (if not all) offenders. However, hubby suspects those statistics may be skewed because of the difficulty of detecting some sex offenses (child molestation, etc…) Finally, what has been proven is that if the society ostracizes sex offenders (registration, restriction of living, restriction of jobs, community outrage) it increases recidivism. Ironic isn’t it.
What rehabilitation? There is no real rehabilitation program for any crimes.
I think for a long time this sort of thing was so hushed up and kept quiet that it is only now being seen as the heinous crime that it is. So longer sentences are what is needed.
Actually, quite a bit of research has indicated that Reentry initiatives can reduce recidivism. Gendreau and Bondo have released tons of data on the fact that if programs address criminogenic needs and reintegrative services are available to offenders upon release, recidivism rates can drop significantly. The real question is do the taxpayers want to pay for education, intensive programs, jobs and follow-up for convicted offenders. Until fully funded, they will not be successful.
To give you an example, my husband just attended the inaugural summit of the International Association of Reentry. One of the highlighted programs was being described and he was very impressed by it. The offenders in the study showed a 50% reduction in recidivism as compared to the control group. The more he listened, he began to see some of the “junk science” in the study, but even after controlling for some of those factors, the impact was likely around 15-20%. He raised his hand in the hall of 500 people and asked, “what was your case manager ratio”. The reply was, “we had 11 case managers, a secretary and myself in the unit”. My husband asked, how many offenders were there- the response “a little over 200”.
My husband politely smiled and let the presentation go on as he leaned over to the Warden of another facility and said “You give me 16 to 1 case manager ratios and I will provide the Catholic church with 2700 new saints(referring to his population)”
He currently has 13 case managers (only when fully staffed- he is currently down 2) to handle 2700 offenders. To be staffed at the same level, he would need about 170 case managers (1700% increase), at an annual additional cost to taxpayers, for one prison, of 10.7 million (or 1/3 of the facilities current operating budget). This of course does not count in the supplies and program materials that he would also need.
Furthermore, if jobs are not available on the outside, then that significantly reduces the efficacy of internal programs.
In sum, the society must ask if they want rehabilitation or punishment. Right now, the society wants retribution, but all that guarantees is more crime (from a recidvism point of view).
However, we are at an exciting time in Criminology. As our economy continues to flounder, many criminologists are anxiously waiting to see if crime will increase. If it does, it may be evidence of a more powerful socio-demographic influence (because we have locked up oodles of people in the last 10 years during economic good times and if that does not stop crime rates from increasing then it opens up some interesting theoretical opportunities). However, if crime stays low during an economic downswing, then there is more support for the idea of protective incapacitation (retribution) and community policing.
This is exactly the point of confusion. It seems to me that one might argue that sex offenses (especially against children) are so heinous that perpetrators should never be released from prison. But the “occasional news story” is just a sensationalistic way to sell the news; percentage-wise, it doesn’t actually happen all that often.
You’re right to be skeptical.
Sex offenders are actually less likely to reoffend than other types of criminals convicted of felonies or “serious misdemeanors”:
There was a similar case here in TN about 15 years or so ago, only it was the grandfather who killed the confessed abuser and murderer of his grandson. He got two years in prison.
You know, it’s quite obvious that prisons do nothing to prevent crimes, and that quite often, the cons come out more vicious than when they went in. It’s too bad that our society is so driven by the idea that we should lock them up, instead of actually working at rehabilitating them when they’re first arrested (since most people tend to get busted for petty crimes, before they do a “major”). That being said, I have no problems with people who prey on children being executed or locked up for life. Of course, I think that any politician convicted of an abuse of power while in office should also face the death penalty. (Might help keep them honest.)
A couple of things bother me about this. The first is that I wonder how much real effort goes into rehab. Locking people away without rehab is both pointless and expensive. And, at the risk of starting another argument, I do not support the death penalty in any cases whatsoever.
The second is the attitude that it is ok to shoot people who are accused of crimes (or are guilty of them). The father who shot that guy - well he ought to have been imprisoned for murder, no matter what the guy did. I understand the response on an emotional level, but cannot countenance it.
Hell, I suffered some abuse. Do I want the guy dead? No. Nor do I want him beaten up or otherwise harmed. I want him rehabilitated. He may not be able to control the fantasies, buit I am sure he could control the urge to act on them.
I’m sorry… how many dead little girls does that equate to exactly? To the parents: “I’m sorry he brutally murdered you little angel after we let him out. But, in all fairness, he really is trying and has cut way back. We’re hoping that it will take only a few more babies dying horribly and dumped in a ditch to really start to get a handle on this.”
It does no honor to the victims to reduce the events to clinical terms. It only makes it more palatable to those who do not want to hear of the ugly, horrible and heart-rending things that were done to these children. It isn’t “His recidivism has resulted in the reoccurance of an assult on a minor”. Read as " The fucking bastard climbed in to the little girls room after her parents said her prayers, dragged her out of the window with a hand covering her mouth and nose, beat her into not struggling, took her crying and bleeding to a remote place where he pinned her down and tore her clothes and RAPED the child as her screamed. He then beat her to death and dumped her little broken body into a ditch or hole like so much garbage. Her parents, nearly out of their minds were called to the Coroners office to identify her little body" This is what we are talking about and your clinical review of reducing the recidivism burns my ass. With the death penalty for cases of rape on children, there is a 0% occurance of recidivism.
What we have here is our own gut reactions, vs. statistics that may or may not be accurate. I’m going to play ball by asuming (for now) that the numbers are accurate. When someone says repeat offenses are only 50 percent or even 1 percent, that may be true. If it is 50 percent it tells me rehabilitation is grossly inadequate. If it is 1 percent, that tells me on the logical level that rehabilitation works. However if a family member were threatened, hurt or killed, logic would go out the window and instinct would take over. It is no longer a number, now it becomes personal.
Nicodemus2004 hints around one important thing - “we” get so involved in the rights of the perpetrator, that we completely disregard the rights of the victims and potential victims.
People say the criminal has a right to life. I can agree with that. Well, so does the victim. The law is supposed to consider how dangerous a criminal is before releasing him. You don’t say “Dr. Lector did 5 years and promises not to eat anyone”, you put him away forever. If he is “cured” and then eats someone after his release, that should be the end. His next trip to jail is permament (forever) with no parole, no release. If you want the victim’s fathers or grandfathers to stop playing vigilante, you have to give them something. Justice. Now instead, it is too often seen as a “revolving door” system.
I understand the high emotions that go into reactions like the ones I’m seeing on this post. (And I don’t mean that in some abstract way, either.)
But I have to echo what a couple of others have said above – knee-jerk reactions (as opposed to reasoned responses) and blanket laws are actually likely to put more kids in jeopardy.
Yes, we need to stop the revolving door for repeat offenders. But doing this requires focusing our limited resources on identifying who these people are and taking measures that can be done in the real world given the staff and budgets we actually have.
See my thread on the Lunsford/Couey case, especially post #26.
If you want real justice, if you want things to get better and for the most dangerous criminals to be thwarted before they strike, please stop and think and support considered approaches rather than “shot while escaping” nonsense.