Damned high? I don’t think so. If your 50% figure is correct, that puts sex offenders at the bottom of the list of those likely to re-offend, less than violent offenders, less than those convicted of property crimes, and less than those convicted of drug crimes. The recidivism rate for all crimes is 67%, so 50% is damned low, if you ask me.
Turns out your 50% figure is incorrect:
Mine broke out child molesters (turns out the rate is different for different types of sex crime). See my link - halfway down is a bar chart with different types of offense and the recidivism rate.
Thanks for the link, btw.
I would argue that BOTH are damned high!
It basically says that we should lock up ALL of them for life, in the sense that our current punishment/rehab operations are not working.
Or it says we should completely rethink what we do with convicts…
Anyone seen data on recidivism in the US vs. Europe?
OK, using your cite, that 52% is for a period of 25 years. If we are comparing apples to apples, child molesters reoffend at a rate of only 19% after 5 years. That is spectacularly low, compared to my cite, that places the overall recidivism rate at 67.5% after only 3 years. As convicted felons go, child molesters have the lowest recidivism rate of any crime.
As if a spouse always has a choice regarding which car to use? (Sex offender avoids plate by ensuring that all cars in family are registered to spouse; state closes “loophole” by ordering all vehicles in family to be issued special plates.)
And, of course, we’re painting a bullseye on the forehead of the teen sons of any sex offender to be beaten or murdered for having driven past a school (or to a school).
Dumb idea. Well-intentioned nonsense.
Well, what about this- at the end of the article, it’s mentioned that Ohio already has a system of distinctive license plates for convicted drunk drivers. On its face, it’s a similar proposal, but I don’t find myself being as strongly against it, somehow. Possibly because it seems like very few convicted drunk drivers will find themselves the target of vigilante justice?
Part of what bugs me is the continued paying for a crime for which sentence has been served. But also, it concentrates attention on those offenders and may take away vigilance toward other potential offenders. Guardians need to be vigilant across the board and not get a false sense of security that all threats have been identified.
Not only the vigilante justice angle, but since drunk driving is a crime committed while you are, in fact, driving a car, it seems more logical.
There’s the answer! Make all members of the family who drive and close family friends put green plates on their cars!!
This proposed law and the more extreme residence laws strike me as pandering to well-intentioned but wrong-headed advocates who spout about it being worthwhile “if it saves a single child’s life” as though that should shut up all opponents. Well, why not ban cars altogether or set speed limits at 5 mph? That’d save a lot more children’s lives.
The green plate law would promote vandalism and road rage incidents, ultimately causing injuries and death to innocent people. The drunk driver plate law had a different goal - making drunks think twice about driving because of the potential embarassment. This new proposal comes from people who are fearful (not without reason) of a class of criminals but are looking for an easy way out that doesn’t exist.
I don’t even think they’re well-intentioned. For one thing, it’s not a well-thought out idea. For another, it’s certainly unconstitutional.
I think it is well-intentioned, although I agree that it’s not well thought out.
There is a couple in our area that is pushing this idea. They’ve been in the local papers quite a bit. A couple of years ago, their 14 year old daughter was abducted, raped, and killed. When the guy that did it was found, they discovered that he was a convicted rapist. I believe that his prior victim was also a young teen. He confessed that he killed the second one so she couldn’t talk. He was living with his parents, around the corner from the second girl’s home. In addition to the license plate idea, her parents are also pushing for neighborhood notification when a registered sex offender moves. They are people in a lot of pain, and I do believe their intentions are good. They don’t want this to happen to anyone else. (They got the idea, BTW, from Ohio’s special license plates for recidivist drunk drivers, which are yellow with red lettering.)
That said, the plan for the plates makes me uneasy, and I’m not defending the idea. A guy that used to work for my dad is on the sex offender list – his crime is compelling prostitution. He tried to get a hooker. He’s not dangerous. He is pretty dumb, and kind of sad, but not dangerous. It wouldn’t serve the public for him to have a green plate, and it would definitely not serve him.
Well-intentioned would be if they were doing it solely to protect the children. That’s not the case, obviously. What they’re seeking to do is punish the offender more than what’s allowed. That’s not well-intentioned; it’s just mean.
I heard where during Prohibition it used to be possible to buy cartons of fresh grape juice that were labelled “Warning! Do not add yeast to the contents of this carton and leave in a warm place, as it will turn into wine!”. Sounds about as effective. :dubious:
Ah, yes-wine bricks. 
Since Candy’s been dead for years, ESPECIALLY if it’s him!
Err… why not just take the drunk driver’s licence away, and incarcerate them for long periods for driving without a licence should they attempt to drive again?
Tagging the car seems like a particularly ridiculous idea.
Such plates are generally issued to repeat DUI offenders who have not (yet) gotten into serious accidents, who establish to the courts’ satisfaction that removing their license would create a hardship for their family. Anyone in the family can drive the vehicle, but the DUI offender is generally limited to going to and from work. It attracts the attention of police, so that they watch such vehicles more closely on the road, but since driving drunk is still considered a foolish action–rather than a reprehensible action–among the majority of citizens, it serves the purpose of highlighting a potential drunk without incurring vigilante action from the citizens among whom they drive and park.
I don’t know that it is a wonderful bit of legislation or whether it has actually saved any lives, but it is not infringing on the rights of family members of a DUI perpetrator (and it is not endangering family members in the way that the proposed sex offender legislation probably is). It places a flag on the specific instrument of harm that is actually associated with the person’s conduct.
You know, you are absolutely right. Why should we consider sex offenders a threat after they have served their time . :rolleyes:
They are predators and threats. The online sites require the offender to voluntarily notify the towns when they move but many don’t do it and the site is often out of date or incorrect.
Plus the site will not include juveniles, such as the 14 year old who touches a 6 year old girl.
Dateline’s series To Catch a Predator has had guys on there who have been caught before but done it again. The public needs to know about them.
Because, after all- the plural of “anecdote” is “data”.
Now, how many stories do you have of sex offenders NOT committing a sex offense, ever again? None, I’ll bet- because those don’t get reported.