If the crime is serious enough, and the chance of reoffending is high enough to justify branding publicly branding the convicted, then they shouldn’t be free.
If the crime was trivial enough, or the chance of repeat offense is low, then the convict should not be subject to such measures upon completing his sentence.
That’s a fair question and I suppose a logical extension of the plate proposal taken to the extreme. Miller, I’m not sure I can voice why I’d find that more objectionable than the other, but I do. Maybe it’s because even though they’re a perp, they still should be able to pursue some normal elements of a life and I don’t think a consistent flag on their forehead would allow for that. Everything they do isn’t always going to be in the pursuit of sexual gratification, yet they’d be penalized in those uncriminal pursuits as well. I fully acknowledge that the plates would only raise a flag when they’re out and mobile, possible at their most dangerous, but leaves completely unaddressed all the potential for harm when they’re not in their car, when they’re coexisting within society in a countless myriad of other ways. I have no answer for how to lessen their danger then and fully admit plates offer at best a partial solution. It is though something and I don’t think you ignore it’s potential benefit simply because you haven’t yet a solution for the rest.
Yes, in a perfect world. It’s not though, is it? Repeat offenders ARE out there. They DO recommit. It IS a problem. The justice system is fundamentally flawed and something tangible must be done to patch it where it leaks. The plates are just one little effort there, imperfect, but necessary in the absence of a flawless response.
Agreed, as I stated before.
Not to mention, no one else can use your car-a friend, a roommate, a spouse, etc.
I heard this same argument about the sex offender registries, but examples abound of people who are on the lists even though most people would consider them not to be a danger to their communities. This thread alone has 2 examples, and plenty more have been reported in the media.
I think the number of people asking to borrow your car would be pretty much zero.
lieu, I’m going to take some exception to your view of the justice system as flawed. It is people who are flawed, in that we cannot see the future with utter clarity.
If it were possible to predict with complete certainty that Offender A would reoffend, and Offender B would not, then I would have no problem with whatever strictures society chose to place on Offender A. Since we can’t do that, then I do have a problem with anything that would make it more difficult for the reformed Offender B to retake his place as a productive member of society.
But wouldn’t a better system be to keep them in jail in the first place? Instituting further punishments after they’ve been released from prison is pretty damn close to double jeopardy, in my opinion.
It’s like getting a speeding ticket, paying the ticket, and then, five years later, the state passes a law making it illegal to drive if you’ve ever had a speeding ticket. Even though you’ve paid your fine, you’re still subject to whatever further punishment any politician with dreams of office can dream up to appear to be “hard on crime”.
Either let them serve their time, and be done with it, or leave them in jail for the rest of their lives (or just flat out execute them). Continually adding on further punishment when they thought they’d served their time is just wrong.
Maybe then the problem is that there’s one blanket term encompassing a wide range of behavior. I think it’s ludicrous to apply the same designation, “Sex Offender”, to both someone who gives a 13 year old condoms and someone who forces himself upon a toddler, a serial rapist, etc. That makes no sense. Have designations, terminology, for each and then let the social stigmas and warnings follow accordingly.
Exactly my point. And count me with those who say-if they’re that dangerous, keep 'em locked up.
We’ve already seen the problems with the list-the people who are on it for really stupid shit, people with similiar names being mistaken, and such.
So have these sex offender lists made us any safer? What’s the scoop on that?
Either sex offenders are so dangerous that they can never be allowed to re-enter society, or they need to be allowed to try to resume their lives. I don’t know why people can’t just choose one of those options (and I think we know which one they would choose) instead of these bizarre alternatives. Civil confinement is nothing but an extended prison sentence, and these living restrictions don’t make much sense. This license plate thing is even weirder. I’ve seen no evidence that these harrassing measures improve safety or reduce sex offenses, either.
Yep. I was lumping “people” and the “justice system” together since one is made of the other but have no problem with separating them in that point. Agreed.
This is where we may differ. I’d be more prone to focus on the rights of potential victims than on those of convicted offenders. Mind you, that’s not without regret. It’s not perfect, for the exact same reason you mentioned above. But I’ve got to lean toward the innocent here, lamentable as any lumps the convicted might have to additionally endure may be.
Will this apply retroactively to past offenders or will it be applied to all cases going forward from the time of (if) passage? I didn’t see a clarification in the article.
Also, to lessen the “continuing punishment” aspect, what they probably should do is place a time limit on how long the tags must be used, say 5 years or so. If, after that period, the person hasn’t been reincarcerated, then give 'em normal tags.
That’s a defensible position. But most every type of criminal gets out of prison at some point; burglars and muggers and con artists all have future potential victims as well.
You do make a good point about lumping all “sex offenders” in the same basket, and were there more discretion in putting this sort of thing more on the truly dangerous, I’d have less problem with it.
"The revised bill would focus on convicted sex offenders who used violence or preyed on minors and would exclude other offenses like public exposure or consensual sex between an adult and a teenager. "
Thankfully, it would appear they’ve a similar concern.
But how does all of that not apply to the license plate?
Isn’t the whole point of statutory rape laws that someone underage isn’t capable of giving consent? “Consensual sex between an adult and a teenager” is pretty vague, too, given that “teenager” covers a wide variety of ages, several years of which are over the age of consent, several of which are under, but, depending the the circumstances, probably shouldn’t be considered sex offences, and several of which are generally agreed on as too young.
The problem with laws like this is that they are political suicide to fix afterward, even if they have really bad unintended consequences. Everyone will see the “Politician X let sex offenders walk free!” mudslinging ads, and X can say goodbye to his career.
Can it be cruel or unusual punishment if it’s not applied to you at the time of sentencing? (This may or may not be cruel, but it sure as heck is unusual.)
Why sex crimes and not violence? There is data that shows when you are older, you stop committing violent crimes (not nearly as many 50 year old muggers out there as there are 20 year old). This is why 3 strikes laws work - you take the 20 year old and lock him up for 25 years and when he gets out he is past his young testosterone phase.
As for sex crimes, the recidivism rate is damned high. Child Molesters have a rate of >50% within 5 years, for example.
The Department of Justice has a report on this (which quotes academic research):
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
Now, does this justify the various scarlet letter laws? Tough Question. As a parent, if there is a 52% chance that a child molester will strike again, I want to know if the neighbor is one. Then again, as we apply these laws retroactively (the registries being seen not as punishment but as information), people who pled guilty long ago are regretting not going to trial.
There are other side effects of these laws. Some states ban a sex offender from living near a park or school - sounds great, right? Except that the offender is now effectively banned from living in ANY urban or suburban area. A map of California was run in the local papers showing that a sex offender would not be able to live ANYWHERE except the desert or the farms if they were banned from living near parks or schools. Rural police are not too happy about this either.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-sex-offender-laws-cover_x.htm
So I will admit to being torn. ASSuming a fair trial and a true sex offender (let’s use the extreme of the 50 year old man and a 4 year old boy just to make it purely nasty), I would prefer death. After that, life in prison. After that, castration (if that actually worked). After that, registered sex offender list. Simply, I want the best possible guarantee that the perp will NEVER again molest a little boy.
But our court system sucks. It is biased against people who can not afford a decent attorney. Sex offenders start off on a bad foot just by being accused. I don’t know if a fair, impartial jury is even possible.
In addition, the laws have been written so that (per an earlier post), giving condoms to a 13 year old is an offense. Urinating in public can qualify you for the list if a kid saw you. High school boys who turn 18 in high school suddenly are offenders if they are sleeping with their 17 year old girlfriend (again, it depends on the state and jurisdiction).
We are willing to let 9 go guilty rather than the 10th go free - a policy I agree with. It is just very hard to reconcile that (personally) with letting child molesters out on the streets without knowing who and where they are.
Ahem - reparsing my terrible sentence there…
We are willing to let 9 guilty go free rather than lock up 1 innocent!
That is way better than candy.
Even if it’s John Candy?