Post Sex Offenders on the Internet?

[wring]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
****wring,**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. **

Did you look at any of them? I’ve spent days reading many of them. In just a few minutes, I’ve found from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/saycrle.htm that most of the persons who have committed sexual assaults on children were known to the child Not strangers. Family or close family friends. (numbers ranged from 65%- 90%) and the same site shows that 40% of those committing sexual assaults on children under 12 were juveniles themselves. (yes, I understand that leaves 60%)

In addition, a 1998 Bueau of Justice Stats news report http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/soo.pr
reviews national data since 1983, and reports that 8% of those who were convicted of a sexual assault were re-arrested for further sexual assault after release. (while they also state that convicted rapists are more likely than non convicted rapists to be convicted of a further sexual assault, the figure of 8% re-arrest is clearly there). How, exactly, does that translate to your assertion?

Besides, Izzy I listed a wealth of sources for you to check. You have yet to provide a single source for your “logical” assertion, but you claim mine, because they acknowledge that gathering info is difficult, cannot be trusted?

here’s more:
this one shows that treating sexual offenders (and breaks down the type) is effective. But even untreated had re-offence rates of about 20% http://inpsyte.asarian-host.org/alexander.htm (this will differ from the 8% above since it does not focus on specifically child molesters)

and another:
http://www.geocities.com/ocoistudios/RECIDIVI.htm
(this one checks out your supposition that first time offenders are a better risk - they are)

Now. Izzy while you’re busy labeling me as making “bizarre claims” - all of these cites were available from that search that I linked. I’ve done my homework and then some. I’ve demonstrated that your assumptions are not supported in facts that can be documented. You still maintain that I am the one making bizarre claims? I would submit to you that any conclusion that you still hold onto, in the face of empirical evidence is not “logical”.

My statements are(so we’re clear): sex offenders are not more likely to reoffend than other criminals. sex offenders do respond to treatment. Megan’s laws do not do anything to prevent child molestation. child molestation is a very horrible thing that should never happen to any child - but any specific child is more at risk for this from people that are known to them and their families than the guy down the block.

[IzzyR]

wring,

You seem to be taking great offence at the word bizarre. I did not mean to characterize your entire position as bizarre, and in fact you may ultimately turn out to be right, as I mentioned earlier. I was referring solely to your claim that "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”, implying that the nearly 200 cites show that these types of crimes do not have a very high level of recidivism. This is clearly false, and most of the sites that I looked at showed a high level, and/or made no comparison to other crimes. (In your latest post you seem to indicate that you were linking these sites with regards to other issues as well, e.g. profiles of likely offenders. But we have hitherto discussed them in the context of the recidivism issue).

The 8% figure that you cite refers to arrests within the first 3 years after release. But the Grubin & Wingate study that you cite does seem to support your position, though it too is loaded with qualifiers.

[wring]

well, yes, I did react negatively to the word ‘bizarre’. I guess my take on it was I linked about 200 cites that discussed recidivism issues (I agree they aren’t all empirical studies), but in essence, tons of info all pretty much saying well, the rates for recidivism for this classification, while we would prefer them to be zero, aren’t ‘high’, and lower than rates for any other crime or felons in general. Perhaps we are disagreeing on the term “high recidivism rate”? the highest I recall from any of them was about 20% which is substantially lower than the general rate (hovering somewhere around 50 -60?? - not empiracal, just best guess from my own little area).

And, in general, so that you understand how these things work, when tracking ex offenders, it’s easiest to accomplish while they’re still under supervision (generally 1 - 3 years time). Most if they do go back, do so within the first 6 months (this again from personal experience working with the population).

I understand that you want data saying that ‘for the rest of their natural life, they never again…’ but you’re not likely to be able to get such information. you’d have to keep them in a study for 20 - 50 years

Any study about people in general will be laden with qualifiers, I would suspect. While the best predictor of future behavior is the past, it isn’t the only predictor and there are millions of other factors that cannot possibly be studied. When doing any study about people and how they behave in society, factors include family, friends, societal influences, employment, general economic conditions, weather, catasrophic events, health etc, etc, etc. Of course there will be qualifiers. But we shouldn’t dismiss the studies because of the qualifiers. After all, we still use aspirin even tho’ studies show that some people have serious adverse reactions, including death …

[erislover]

Is your name an oxymoron or what? I normally agree with you, but this is a blatant paradox.

1. A convicted criminal is punished as a result of conviction.
2. Megan’s Laws are an additional punishment via invasion of privacy.
3. Megan’s Laws are not preventative in nature
4. Crime is not as objective as you want it to be

Megan’s laws presume “Once a criminal, always a criminal.” Our judicial system is based largely on the idea of reform through punishment, not punishment-as-revenge. By the way, I find the issue of accidental postings to be incidental. I don’t want to discuss it.

The public has no “right” to see which people are criminals other than the rights they already have to ask police for the information. Crime statistics are accurate for an area. I believe even using people’s names is allowed to be researched (as my local paper did when I was in Ohio). In other words, the information is already there (but not as detailed) if you want it. Handing a list of criminals and their addresses to the public at large is atrocious. What next, public hangings? Come on.

As well, your contention that rape and child molestation are, like, the worst of the worst is disgusting. Almost any physical crime against another person’s body is disgusting. They are all invasive, demeaning, scarring, etc. To make rape out to be the worst of the worst is scapegoating. Having the “pleasure” to know quite a few rape victims as well as other people subjected to other physical crimes, I can assure you the distinction is not as clear as you want it to be.

Megan’s Laws are akin to excommunication. Clearly this avoids the issue of reform completely. I suggest you brush up on some sociology and psychology before making a case about revenge-based legality.

As well, Megan’s Laws are not preventative since they only cover people who have already done something. How could they be preventative in nature? “Oh, I better not commit a sexual offense or my name is gonna be all over the internet!” Hardly. Laws are barely preventative in nature; they keep law abiding citizens as law abiding citizens. The punishment for breaking them is corrective in theory.

There are 4 justifications for punishment. Revenge, protection of society, correction, prevention. As a refutation for me, perhaps you can explain how Megan’s Laws fall under the justifications; I only see extended revenge there, and that’s not what our judicial system is based on.

[beakerxf]

I would appreciate some clarification on a couple of points.

First…

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
3. It makes it alot harder for the offender to get back into society. In particular, the innocent family of the offender may suffer the most, as they will be shunned by the community for the crimes of their relative.

Freedom2 responded
And this is a bad thing because…?

Is “guilt by association” part of your argument Freedom2? In other words, family members and friends should be punished (through social pressure) for the crime as well? Or were you merely responding to the first sentence that states “It makes it alot harder for the offender to get back into society.”?

Second…

What is the definition of “high” recividism? It’s a subjective term that brings up different numbers in various reader’s minds.

For those that support Megan’s Law, at what point does the recidivism become high enough to justify notification legislation?

[Freedom]

As a refutation for me, perhaps you can explain how Megan’s Laws fall under the justifications;

Actually…to start, I will just punch a bunch of big old holes in your logic:)

1. A convicted criminal is punished as a result of conviction.
2. Megan’s Laws are an additional punishment via invasion of privacy.

You are mixing the objectivism in the wrong place here. Are you really trying to argue that society can not “invade the privacy” of a convicted criminal? I guess jail, execution, ankle bracelets, parole officers, restrictions on voting and gun ownership all don’t count as “invasions of privacy.”

Since society has already approved of life sentences and executions, public registries don’t seem all that out of bounds.

3. Megan’s Laws are not preventative in nature
4. Crime is not as objective as you want it to be

Ummmmmmmm…

I would say warning people that a monster lives in their midst counts as preventive. And I’m a little confused about the objectivity part.

Are you saying that there are circumstances where grabbing a female jogger, beating the crap out of her and raping her is OK?

Or maybe snatching a 7 year old away from their parents and then sexually abusing them is not all that bad?

What DO you mean that crime is not always objective?

Megan’s laws presume “Once a criminal, always a criminal.” Our judicial system is based largely on the idea of reform through punishment, not punishment-as-revenge.

ummmm… So what?

Plenty of crimes carry either life sentences or the death penalty.

The public has no “right” to see which people are criminals other than the rights they already have to ask police for the information.

Now…I’m not quite sure I agree with this. I know for a fact that certain towns publish lists of drunk drivers, drug dealers and people caught with prostitutes. These crimes seem much less horrific than rape and child molestation, yet we publish them.

Handing a list of criminals and their addresses to the public at large is atrocious. What next, public hangings? Come on.

Talk about slippery slopes…

Come on:)

As well, your contention that rape and child molestation are, like, the worst of the worst is disgusting.

Well, they may not share the title exclusively, but I think it is a far cry from “disgusting” to rank them up there among the contendors. It’s not like I’m claiming a guy smoking weed on the corner is the worst, I’m talking about rapists and child molestors.

Megan’s Laws are akin to excommunication. Clearly this avoids the issue of reform completely

I do not see the need for society to risk “reforming” rapists and child molestors. I also see no need to attempt to reform murderers or terrorists.

IMHO they have forfeited any right to live among the rest of the world as equals the moment they committed their crime.

As well, Megan’s Laws are not preventative since they only cover people who have already done something. How could they be preventative in nature? “Oh, I better not commit a sexual offense or my name is gonna be all over the internet!” Hardly. Laws are barely preventative in nature; they keep law abiding citizens as law abiding citizens. The punishment for breaking them is corrective in theory.

That paragraph is a study in contradiction.
First, OF COURSE they only cover people who have already done something. Duh…

The point is to prevent it from happenening again. The point is not to scare the person into not committing the crime, but to allow people to know when a monster is living in their midst. It is in place to allow people to AVOID becoming a victim.

And I have no idea what your sentence about laws keeping law abiding people as law abiding people means. You started it out with a declaration that laws ARE NOT preventative, but then seem to conclude that they are.

It is not laws that keep people law abiding. It is the people themselves. Laws are pretty useless in prevention. Witness all the lawbreaking we have…
To answer a previous question…
The reason I asked whether or not you knew who Megan was, was to answer a previous point that had been raised.

It was asserted that there was no benefit to be derived from Megan’s LAw over here:

that suggests that “Megan’s Law” legislation has been or will be beneficial to society. I suspect this is because none exists.

So I was merely answering that there would have been a benefit to Megan and her family.

[Freedom]

Is “guilt by association” part of your argument Freedom2? In other words, family members and friends should be punished (through social pressure) for the crime as well? Or were you merely responding to the first sentence that states “It makes it alot harder for the offender to get back into society.”?

ooppsss…

I didn’t even see the part about family members. I didn’t even take them into consideration. I think they have no relevance to this subject at all.

What is the definition of “high” recividism? It’s a subjective term that brings up different numbers in various reader’s minds.

For those that support Megan’s Law, at what point does the recidivism become high enough to justify notification legislation?

For a crime as horrific as these, I would say about .00001%

[erislover]

[hijack]Its nice that I get logged off for inactivity when typing up a long reply. @#!!@#$ BASTARDS[/hijack]
Now, Freedom, its nice that you can punch holes in my logic. But, when combatting a slippery slope argument, try not to use them as well. To wit, [paraphrased]“We already invade people’s privacy, why not go the distance?”

Yeah. MY “slippery slope” argument was to be illustrative of that idea. At least you caught half of it.

First off, of course I view them as crimes. But I don’t view Megan’s Laws as a valid response to the crime because it provides social ostracization. Hello? We already have a system in place that accomplishes that! You stated some yourself. We have the following things in place for “monsters”: life sentences, death penalties, asylums. If it is truly your contention that these offenders are beyond reform then that is where they belong. Sewing a yellow star on their lapel, figuratively speaking, isn’t going to help anything.

Posting their address and identity on the internet? What, they can’t take a bus? “Oh, that would be against the law, too!” Thanks, but I try to think we’re above Gestapo tactics like social ostracization, or how about “seperate but equal”? We can provide a place for criminals to be housed away from the public…oh wait, we already have one. Jails, man.

If they can be reformed, leave them alone. If not, then don’t let them back out! You want objectivity, there you have it.

[Freedom]

If they can be reformed, leave them alone. If not, then don’t let them back out!

So what do you do when they can’t be reformed, yet they get let out anyway?

[Sterra]

Well you don’t just tell who they are.

Freedom you say child molesters are horrible monsters that deserve to be ostracised. I say that gun owners are horrible monsters that deserve to be ostracised(and looking at the gun debates threads some people do say that). To do it fairly we put both laws on the books.

Its either all or none. Which would you have?

[Freedom]

Well you don’t just tell who they are.

That’s quite a plan you have there.

Freedom you say child molesters are horrible monsters that deserve to be ostracised. I say that gun owners are horrible monsters that deserve to be ostracised(and looking at the gun debates threads some people do say that). To do it fairly we put both laws on the books.

Its either all or none. Which would you have?

Either way is fine with me. If society decides to ignore rapists/child molestors then I would just handle the situation myself if it effected someone close to me.

And the other way…

Sure…try it.

It has been a little while since this issue was decided, so I can understand why you would be confused. You see, WE have the guns. Guns are power. Like it or not that is the naked truth.

Try outlawing 80 million armed Americans. I have a feeling that the law would be changed fairly quick.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Laws do not equal right and wrong. Laws are only an attempt to codify society’s right and wrongs. Slavery was once legal, but that did not make it right. Attempts to equate gun owners to rapists are ridiculous. If you follow the logic you suggest then you end up being unable to prosecute ANYONE for ANYTHING.

Don’t like murder? Want to set up a system to deal with murderers? Well only if we give ministers the same punishment for preaching.

How about stealing? Sure…but lock up all the journalists.

What is wrong with you people? I am not talking about suspending civil liberties for the world in order to CATCH child molestors before any crime happens. I’m talking about registration being part of the deal.

If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. I still have not seen anyone explain to me why registration is so much worse than life imprisonment or execution. Sure, it is ANOTHER form of justice, but why is it any less right than any of the ones currently in use?
And to correct a misconception about me…

Freedom you say child molesters are horrible monsters that deserve to be ostracised.

I never said that. Please provide a cite if you want to insist that I did. If you read closely you will see that I advocate the right of the potential victims to protect themselves, not some shunning for the sake of further punishment.

If a convicted child molestor moves in next to me, then I want to know about it so I can protect my children. If a rapist moves in, I want my wife to know so that she can be aware.

Remember…Knowing is half the battle…

[webmastr]

My two cents:

If Megan’s Law is such a good thing, why do we stop at sex offenses? Let’s have the law apply to ALL crimes–drunk driving, theft, domestic violence, disorderly conduct, you name it. I have yet to hear from a Megan’s Law supporter that thought this was a good idea; somehow sex crimes are ‘different’. I disagree.

The biggest problem I have with Megan’s Law and others, however, is that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution and our rule of law concept: persons having completed their jail sentence have repaid their debt to society; punishing them after they have completed the terms of their sentancing is akin to double jeopardy. Jail sentences are too leniant? Jails do not reform our prisoners? Fine: these are all legimiate concerns and problems – but the problem is on the society that builds the jails and has decided on a particular structure of punishement and reform.

Megan’s Law supporters are simply not willing to admit that as part of the society that helps builds the very prisons that fail to work, they are part of the problem. Prison reform takes a lot longer, and involves a lot of hard work on our part—simply trampling on the rights of former convicts is a lot easier.

There was a line in Midnight Express, along the lines of ‘Countries are measured on the degree of compassion they show the downtrodden’, or something like that. By ensuring that convicted sex offenders will never be able to properly re-enter society, we are merely ensuring that the system will in fact not work–making it even easier for Megan’s Law supporters to pass even more laws.

I am convinced that Americans (and Brits to a degree) are simply so uptight, confused, and paranoid about sex that they are more than willing to re-write the Constitution.

[capacitor]

Hey, hey don’t mind me. I am just hacking into the site and adding a few extra names to the list. Go on now.

[Freedom]

The biggest problem I have with Megan’s Law and others, however, is that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution and our rule of law concept: persons having completed their jail sentence have repaid their debt to society; punishing them after they have completed the terms of their sentancing is akin to double jeopardy

This is not true if you make it part of the original sentence. If this statute was in place at the time they committed their crime, then everything is perfectly legal.

The only place I can see you challenging this under the US Constitution would be the “cruel and unusual pubnishment” clause. Of course, I think it falls short of that standard.

Megan’s Law supporters are simply not willing to admit that as part of the society that helps builds the very prisons that fail to work, they are part of the problem.

Clarification please…

Are you saying we all bear some responsibility for rapists and child molestors?

If so, then I reject this out of hand.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Freedom2 *

Megan’s Law supporters are simply not willing to admit that as part of the society that helps builds the very prisons that fail to work, they are part of the problem.

Clarification please…
Are you saying we all bear some responsibility for rapists and child molestors?
If so, then I reject this out of hand.

No, we are mentioning that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy once started. There is no way these people can integrate themselves back inot society once something like this is done. Merely making that part of the original sentence doesn’t make it any less cruel. This is a life sentence, a never-ending punishment; condemned to live in a society that hates you and will give you no chance of reformation.

[Freedom]

This is a life sentence, a never-ending punishment; condemned to live in a society that hates you and will give you no chance of reformation.

So I take it you are against all life sentences and executions?
(I am anti-death penalty BTW)

[erislover]

Nope, not against life imprisonment, but life sentences, yes I am. Let me clarify what I mean by this, instead of the usual legal definition.

Life Imprisonment: we build a jail, you live there. The only people you associate with are other people unable to function effeciently in society and guards to make sure society gets along without you. You may continue to enjoy the more simple things in life such as reading, writing, television, guests. You may not associate with the world at large any longer. They may not associate with you.

Life Sentence: any number of punishments that continue to distinguish a “reformed” person (one let back into society) from an average citizen. These can take any number of forms. These can take any number of forms; cutting off the hands of theives, tattoos, special bracelets, etc etc. Or, even, public posting of private information which draws a direct line to the crime they committed. You may associate with the world at large and they may associate with you.

Death Penalty: Used in cases, in theory, of utter depravity. Usually the family members push the state for revenge. Unclear as to the usefulness of this form of retribution other than making some family members feel avenged, and perhaps more safe than previously.

In this sense, life imprisonment is still a pretty terrible punishment, but not as bad as a life sentence can be. Allowing the public at large to know who among them was a criminal can only lead to lynchings (and similar tactics). Here in the greater Boston area this was already made clear. Some judge let a sex offender live on house arrest or something like that, and whoa was there outrage. This preson couldn’t leave the house without protesters and everything. It was a media circus. Clearly, prison is a better option, both for us and them.

[sub]Now, obviously in normal conversation “life sentence” means exactly what I state life imprisonment means, I’m not trying to redefine the word. I just can’t think of a better way to say it.[/sub]

[Freedom]

In this sense, life imprisonment is still a pretty terrible punishment, but not as bad as a life sentence can be.

I disagree that this is true. Either way, it certainly can be seen the opposite way by different people.

Some judge let a sex offender live on house arrest or something like that, and whoa was there outrage. This preson couldn’t leave the house without protesters and everything. It was a media circus. Clearly, prison is a better option, both for us and them.

We agree on this part.

I’m not quite sure my position is being understood here. I think rapists/child molestors should be put in prison until they die, and then burried under the prison after they die. If they tear down the prison, then they should dig up their bodies and move them under another prison.

I never want them out of prison.
However…

They do get out. Once the discussion is no longer around whether or not they are getting out, THEN we get to the registration discussion. IMHO there are two things to weigh.

The convict’s right to privacy, and the public’s right to safety.

Rape and child molestation are crimes of such a great magnitude that I feel public safety overrides the sexual predator’s right to privacy. I know this can be thrown onto the slippery slope and we can outlaw anything we want to in the name of safety, or we could invade all privacy in the name of safety, but this has a signifigant difference.

It is only imposed after the fact. Only after a person has been convicted does he become a candidate for registration. We are taking nothing away from the public at large, and we are not invading the public’s privacy. I also do not support this being applied retroactively.

And about punishment after jail…

I think it is a pretty well established principle that society can impose restrictions after releasing a convict from jail. There are half-way houses, parole officers, ankle bracelts, communtiy service requirements and probably a host of other things I do not know about.

Certainly your position is not that a person is either IN JAIL or FREE is it?

You may not think that this is an APPROPRIATE restriction, but it is not breaking any sacred legal ground that has not been established before.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Freedom2 *
I’m not quite sure my position is being understood here. I think rapists/child molestors should be put in prison until they die, and then burried under the prison after they die. If they tear down the prison, then they should dig up their bodies and move them under another prison.

I never want them out of prison.

This sort of extremism is exactly why many people push for the death penalty. Not to slight your opinion, I think this way about almost any crime against another person, not just sex crimes.

I know this can be thrown onto the slippery slope and we can outlaw anything we want to in the name of safety, or we could invade all privacy in the name of safety, but this has a signifigant difference.

I dunno, I don’t see much of one. Murder is, IMHO, far worse than rape, which is still a lesser offense than altering a person physically against their will (ie-beat into vegetation, dismemberment, etc). All are crimes against people and should be handled according to degree. I find sexual crimes to be higher than a simple assault but far and away from murder, extended kidnapping, disfigurement, and the like.

We are taking nothing away from the public at large, and we are not invading the public’s privacy. I also do not support this being applied retroactively.

This is mob rule. I find it distasteful enough that there are persons who must be controlled by physical force and kept out of the public’s way. But I don’t want to publicly ostracize them, which is what disclosure of criminals would do.

I think it is a pretty well established principle that society can impose restrictions after releasing a convict from jail. There are half-way houses, parole officers, ankle bracelts, communtiy service requirements and probably a host of other things I do not know about.

There sure are all of these things. But they don’t involve compromising a person’s attempt to re-integrate into society. At most the only people that need to know about parole, ankle bracelets, and such, are employers who will need to understand why this person needs certain days off, follows a restricted schedule, etc.
Who would want to hire a known sex-offender? Who would shop at that store, eat at that restaraunt? These people would need to go on welfare of some sort or become homeless people. This is worse than prison in every way I can imagine. This is the carrot at the end of the stick, dangling just out of reach.

Certainly your position is not that a person is either IN JAIL or FREE is it?

Almost, yes. Being a member of society, even a restricted one, is far and away from being in prison. I don’t doubt many are happy to get parole (I know of one person personally) and consider it freedom at last.
Parole is limited freedom as a test of more permanent and less restricted freedom. Being on parole isn’t that bad: follow the law, contact your parole officer when you’re supposed to, and don’t leave the state. I would dare say children are less free than a man on parole!

I am all for negative reinforcement for adults. Megan’s Laws aren’t extreme (shit, look at movie stars) they are just inappropriate to apply to criminals of any kind.

[Freedom]

Ok, I think we are starting to go in circles now.
I don’t see us going anywhere else with this discussion since none of the facts seem to be under debate, we just interpret how to deal with them differently.

I understand your point about letting people reintegrate into society once their debt to society is paid. I even think ex-cons should be allowed to own firearms and vote.

However, I don’t think certain people can ever pay off their debt. I have no arguement with your take on murderers and kidnappers. I just see rapists and child molestors as being right down there with them. I guess an opinion on this is going to be highly subjective and very subject to a person’s life experience.

My opinion is that letting them out is a mistake. If we are going to make that mistake, then we need to take steps to minimize the risk to potential victims.

Just my personal opinion of course.