I spent days researching this on the net. I’ll link you to the search engine page with all of the sites I found. none were able to demonstrate that sex offenders were ‘always’ likely, ‘more’ likely etc. to re-offend, and most offered proof to the contrary. many people make those statements you have, then are quoted, and mis quoted. here, look for yourself 197 documents
only if you knew their address and name (correctly), and only if that person was correctly either entered onto the data base or correctly left out and only if that person has already been convicted .
This is exactly my point, Izzy even in the case you describe, there’s great potential for wrong information. So, at best in these marginal cases, you might be able to figure something out about the person. I feel, very strongly, that you are better off, in the scenario you describe, to protect your child by giving them information, observing how the person interacts with your child and others etc etc, then to rely on a flawed system. So, you check on the data base and find no information about the guy. now, you feel safe, right? But - you didn’t know that he gave you a different name, that the information was incorrectly entered or that he hadn’t been convicted yet. But you sure felt better, didn’t you?
Ok. as far as I’m concerned, either you keep 'em locked up for the rest of their lives or deal with the fact. and dealing with it would not (IMHO) include branding them.
Just in case you were serious: Ok, so the guy is branded. Now what. How does he support himself? who could possibly hire him? would you go into a store or work beside some one branded in such a manner? would you hire some one in those circumstances? I work with ex offenders on employment issues, and I can tell you that child molesters are difficult enough to place into safe working environments (and frankly, I want them working, a lot!). -explantion : by “safe working environment” I specifically mean a place that it’s safe for them to be in, places where kids are unlikely to be unaccompanied.
And as far as keep 'em locked up forever. In some cases, yes, it’s the best and safest thing to do. However, in other cases, it’s not at all clear.
I’ve known several that had been molested themselves as children, and went on to molest - in two of the cases, the person was legally an adult when they were caught. In one specifically, his father and uncle both had molested him since he was a child, it was part of the ‘guy stuff’ that they did. His dad and uncle are serving life in prison(correctly IMHO), he did 3 years. That was at least 12 years ago, he’s been gainfully employed for that length of time, and not had so much as a parking ticket.
I am not advocating to let all molesters out. I am advocating that if we do release them, that we have systems in place: 1. counseling, required and available (not, for example, the one group session at 75$ per that was available when I was dealing with the homeless, illiterate guy who lived about 20 miles away from the available counseling). 2. Supervision for a period of time (aka parole).
That’s what I get for attempting to post when I can barely see straight. And are you promising those lashes
and on a serious not, would you support branding if there was a remote possibilty of it being used against you Freedom? Imagine the scenario. An evil scheeming liberal prosecuter doesn’t like you. He decides to press sexual harassment, or molestation charges against you. You are snetanced and branded. Then it comes out that you were innocent, but ooops, you have a brand.
Except you seem to think that “sex offender” automatically means “rapist.” A nineteen-year-old boy who has sex with a fifteen-year-old girl is not a “rapist” (phrases like “statutory rape” notwithstanding). Pee Wee Herman, who is a “sex offender” because he whacked off in a pornographic movie theater, is not a “rapist.”
Sex offenders of all stripes are extremely unpopular right now. Gun owners are becoming unpopular, too. Can’t you imagine some HCI nut saying, “We ought to post pictures of these gun owners around the neighborhood so we’ll know whom to avoid”?
But gun ownership is not a crime, you say. Okay, then: How would you feel about posting pictures of people convicted of owning an unregistered “assault weapon” around the neighborhood? They’re duly convicted criminals, aren’t they? And those naughty gun owners are well known for their rates of recidivism – as soon as they sell one gun, they’re just as likely to go out and buy another! We have to let people know who these scofflaw “assault weapon” owners are, so we can protect our children from them!
I’m not buying your arguement or your comparison. The two are worlds apart. Please notice I recognized the need for a tiered system to differentiate between varying offences.
If they criminalized gun owners, they would never equal sex offenders.
Never.
There is a right and wrong in this world that is seperate from the whatever the current law of the land is. You don’t walk away from something that is right just because of some unrelated possibility that is wrong.
And who judges that absolute “right” and “wrong”? You? What you call “God”? Hear ye, hear ye, listen to the Gospel According to Freedom2! Bleah. For a user with “freedom” in his name, you sure do seem selective in applying it.
I’ve been thinking about what you said, and I think you may be right. Maybe there really is no right or wrong. Maybe anyone should be able to do whatever they want without society passing judgement on them.
I just want the same free get out of jail card you want to hand the rapists and molestors when I settle the matter according to my own personal standards.
Every man for himself. That should just about do it, right?
Freedom2 (along with “Wildest Bill,” one of the more ironic names on the board):
tracer was not trying to make a sweeping statement about the philosophy of ethics. He was merely pointing out, quite sensibly, that your entire position seems based on the notion that “you don’t walk away from something that is right just because of some unrelated possibility that is wrong.”
How in the world is the possibility that something is wrong unrelated to its being “right”?
More importantly: by itself, someone’s conception of “right” and “wrong” is not enough to justify legislative action, as this conception must necessarily be entirely subjective. Some account must be taken of the actual consequences of said action. So far, you have yet to offer an argument substantially different than: “those people deserve any punishment they get because they are sex offenders.” You have yet to offer any proof, or even a single instance, that suggests that “Megan’s Law” legislation has been or will be beneficial to society. I suspect this is because none exists.
On the other hand, logic and plenty of anecdotal evidence (at the very least) suggest that these laws lead to a low-grade vigilantism. Yes, let’s set up a system whereby potential rapists are forced to flee every job and community they settle down in; homeless transients are easy to keep track of, after all.
However, what it should come down to for someone interested in “freedom” is the question of how we want to treat our free citizens. Is it in our interests to have them hounded by a frightened public at the urging of government? Should free citizrns be forced to register their location and travel plans at all times? Given the nature of rape and child molestation, especially the high propensity for repeat offense, much stricter sentencing is entirely reasonable. Releasing and tormenting these people is not.
It is completely insane that non-violent drug offenders frequently spend more time is prison than convicted rapists. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I read Freedom’s comment “. . . just because of some unrelated possibility that is wrong” as: “. . . just because of some unrelated possibility that it is wrong.”
Needless to say, please ignore “1)” in my above post.
Okay, I poked around a bit. Few of these studies actually compare rates for different types of crimes, so it’s difficult to know what their rates mean. And most of the studies bemoan the difficulty of getting reliable data. There was one that suggested that sex-offenders have a lower recidivism rate than other offenders, but I think it was misleading. A career criminal will always have a higher recidivism rate than a “regular” person who happens to commit a certain type of crime. The valid comparison would be first time offenders of both categories. (In fact, several studies noted that rapists have a higher recidivism rate than other sex offenders. I would attribute this to the fact that rapists are generaly drawn more from the ranks of the anti-social elements than are other sex offenders who seem to be more evenly distributed across different socio-economic strata.)
It goes without saying that everything I’ve written is of-the-top-of-the-head jive, so no need to belabor this point. But I continue to believe that my original position is most likely true, due to the reasoning that I outlined in my earlier post.
In any event, the various studies do suggest that recidivism rates are alarmingly high, however they might compare to other crimes.
I know you caught yourself, but I just wanted to make the point more clear.
Raping people and molesting children is wrong. Society protecting itself from them is right. Demonizing gunowners and throwing them in jail is the unrelated possibility that would be wrong.
Do you know who Megan is?
I am not defending Megan’s law in it’s entirety, just the concept of public notification.
If you read carefully, you will see that I prefer to keep them locked up for all eternity.
You, tracer and I seem to differ on what exactly a free citizen is. I don’t see rapists and child molestors as being “free citizens.”
Do YOU want to register privately with the police? Do you want to have a private parole officer?
Probably not, so even you don’t consider these offenders to be “free.” We just differ on the extent to which we would limit their freedom to protect society.
Given my preference, the rapists and child molestors would never be released. If we have to let them out, the future victims deserve some sort of notice. As long as the punbishment was in place when they did their crime, I see no reason not to punish them anyway society sees fit. Society today seems to think strapping someone down and pumping them full of poison is OK, I don’t see registration as worse than execution.
You will get no arguement from me. Victimless crimes should not be crimes. Legalize all drugs and release all inmates who are serving time for non-violent drug offenses. Expunge their records while we are at it.
So, You stated "OTOH, I am aware that these types of crimes have a very high level of recidivism. ". I linked you to nearly 200 cites that show otherwise, and you object, saying that:
one study that said it was lower you claim was “misleading”.
That data is difficult to obtain.
that ‘career’ criminals shouldn’t be compared. etc.
This is Great Debates, so your statement of “this is off the top of my head jive so don’t belabor the point, I still think my original position is most likely true” doesn’t cut it in the face of facts to the contrary.
Regarding the “the various studies do suggest that recidivism rates are alarmingly high, however they might compare to other crimes” but don’t list the numbers, so we are left with your assesment of “alarmingly high”. I will grant you that for the victims, any recidivism is horrible, but this goes back to the basic concept - either lock em all up forever or make some concerted effort to have rehabilitation on the outside possible.
Bottom line, you’ve repeated that you believe that your original position of ‘very high’ was true. I repeat - where’s your proof of your assertion?
By the way ** Freedom** I know exactly who Megan was and the circumstances. She was a young child kidnapped, raped and murdered by a neighbor, who had a history of molesting and harming children. Her death was a tragedy. I suggest that the person who did it shouldn’t have been released from prison at all. However, at best even if ‘Megans laws’ had been in effect prior to her death, perhaps (and this is not certain since she was snatched off the street) she would not have been murdered, but, it is clear that the person who killed her would have killed some child some time - so he would have possibly then just gone to the next neighborhood over and snatched some **other ** child. It MIGHT have prevented Megan’s death, but not prevented a crime.
Which, of course, is the crux of the issue, and seems to be in dispute. The assumption you’re making here is that there unequivocably will be “future victims.” Last time I checked, we don’t punish people for crimes they might commit. And even if there is a higher propensity for sex offenders to commit a crime again, I don’t see that as justification that we should punish every sex offender equally more harshly, as every person is different - some reform, some regress, some get worse, some get better, and to across the board say, “Lock 'em all up and throw away the key” is as harmful to society as any of its other ills.
I think that the studies suggesting low recidivism rates are fundamentally flawed for a couple of different reasons.
First, I’m guessing (though I could be wrong) that they count people guilty of the 18 year old/15 year old relationships. There’s really not anything wrong with these relationships, and nothing to suggest that the offenders will commit any sex crimes upon release. Including these people with the real child molesters/rapists skewers the numbers.
Second, and more importantly, the studies are flawed based on the very nature of the crime itself. If you’ve read anything about this subject, you know that child molesters are some of the most manipulative people on this Earth. In most cases (especially when it involves incest), it is NOT reported. Victims often believe, through some warped sense of logic that most people will never comprehend, that the crime was their fault. Molesters have an uncanny ability to spot people who are susceptible to this type of manipulation. The only time they get arrested for their crimes is when they display a lack of judgement in choosing their victims, are caught red-handed, or are caught with kiddie porn.
Compare these scenarios to, say, a bank robber. How many robbers can convince the bank not to prosecute them. I’d really like to meet the thief who can convince the bank manager that the hold-up was actually his fault!
As for Megan’s Law, I guess it has its good and bad points, most of which were covered in detail by other posters. Personally, I’m divided on the issue. I am of the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth school when it comes to this issue (i.e. "Hey, Bubba! Get in here! We got you a new friend!). Of course, in my heart, I know this approach is wrong, but having been emotionally involved with women who’ve been through this, and having seen the indescribable pain it causes, I have found myself incapable of providing an objective viewpoint on the penalties that this crime should entail.
Sentencing for sex offenders should be significantly more strict (with the understanding that statutory rape and honest-to-god child molestation are not necessarily the same thing).
Given that sentences are generally not becoming more strict, and given the entirely proper Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, sex offenders are going to continue to be released quite frequently.
So the question becomes: Is Megan’s Law legislation – that is, public notification of resident sex offenders – ultimately beneficial or detrimental to society?
If public notification actually reduced the frequency of rape, then it would probably be a good thing. However, I am unaware of any evidence at all – even anecdotal evidence – that suggests this. Moreover, I have yet to come across even a rational prediction of said drop in rape. That certain people will be aware of the apparent danger they face only deflects that danger to those who are unaware. Do you honestly believe that a rapist intent on finding a victim will be unable to do so?
If public notification doesn’t prevent rape, then what are its effects? If notification is widespread, a fearful community is one. If that fear turns to anger, a sex offender driven from any job or home he might hope to keep. Not only are homeless transients hard to keep track of, they’re more dangerous, too. Of course, I have no evidence to prove that public notification leads to an increase in rapes, but at least that conclusion isn’t completely illogical.
I certainly do. Given that you put the question in bold, I’ll assume you think that it’s important. I don’t see why. No amount of ineffective, irrational, harmful, unconstitutional* legislation will bring her back. In the people’s panic that the same thing could happen to their daughters, they failed to realize that naming a bad law after a little girl doesn’t make it an better.
I was well aware of that. I was not trying to make the point that you should support harsher penalties. I was making the point that you shouldn’t support public notification, regardless of your position on harsher penalties.
Of course I do. If a convict is finished with his jail time and his parole time (which is an early release, predicated on certain agreed upon conditions), then I consider him to be a free citizen (even if he’s being harassed by law enforcement). Restriction of the rights of voting and gun ownership among convicts also seems morally odious, but those are passive restrictions with some practical benefit. Public notification is an active harm that serves no practical benefit.
= Every “Megan’s Law” that I’ve heard of has been enacted retroactively on those already serving time. The justification for this has been that it is not actually a form of punishment, and so is not an ex post facto law (which must do harm to be unconstitutional). There are also serious, if less certain, eqaul protection clause issues here.
Your assertion that you’ve linked 200 studies which show otherwise is categorically false. In fact, you didn’t even make this bizarre claim the first time around. I did not check through all 200 studies, but I did look through several, and only one dealt with this comparison at all. The fact that the studies acknowledge the difficulty in getting data is significant, or should be to anyone who, like yourself, is trying to prove something from these studies. I repeated my original assertion is true because it is logical. I cannot prove it. You have done nothing more than link to a search engine with hundreds of studies, some of which might possibly have some bearing on this issue. Thanks. Feel free to believe whatever you want.
