I smell a new “Ask the _____” thread!
Actually, I’d be curious. I know someone whose ex-wife accused him of molesting their daughter as retaliation. Plus, I know people who simply have trouble controlling their impulses or have desires they can’t explain. So I wouldn’t mind having a POLITE question and answer session. Though, manners may be more than I could ask…
Y’know, I’ve thought about it.
Many times.
I’m just not sure how it would go over.
Well, here’s how it would go over…some people would freak. Some people would ask you ignorant questions. Some people would be honestly curious and wonder how you ended up in that position.
I’m the last type. Plus, just have a sort of sordid curiousity…probagly woldn’t make you feel any better than the mean people.
You know…it takes all kinds.
Given the history of similar threads and the very nasty trainwrecks which have resulted, you would be wise to refrain, regardless of how illuminating your personal experience might be. No good can come of it.
I’m with Binarydrone, Abbie. That’s not what he said. Also, if you like, look up the word “counterproductive.” The point is not “be nice and everything will be fine,” it’s “harrass him and things are more likely to be worse, which is what they’re trying to avoid.” It’s more likely to cause a problem in their community, or he could pack up and leave and be a problem someplace else.
Assuming the worst about someone doesn’t automatically justify whatever you want to do to them. Perhaps the best way to keep safe with this guy around is not to overreact.
If this point wasn’t brought up at the meeting, it should have been. If the statistics are right, then there’s a fair chance that there may already be sex offenders/predators living in your neighborhood. While NOBODY wants to live next door to an RSO, knowing that he’s there and having a heightened awareness of the warning signs may well PREVENT a sexual abuse from an unknown source. I know it’s a “glass half-full” kind of thing, but RSO’s have to live somewhere. At least we know about them.
I meant to say;
... there may already be sex offenders/predators living in your neighborhood
… that haven’t been caught yet, so you don’t know about them.
im not trying to pick any fights with parents or victims of crimes, but honestly if someone is dangerous enough to require a town meeting, maybe that person should still be in jail, otherwise he’s paid his debt to society and should be granted the same opportunities as any other convicted felon returning to society… I mean drug dealers and theives dont have to register with towns they return to. Im not implying that anyone should go out of their way to befriend them or associate with them, but they dont deserve to be lynched, and if they do deserve to be lynched, then they should still be safely(for them or us??) behind bars.
so many threads to pick from to quote… so i won’t bother.
There are two obvious trains of thought: People (read: Vigilantes) like Abbie (and AnnieX-mas from a previous thread) who literally want to burn SO’s at the stake (any and all of them, but esp. Level 3’s (no such lable in MI).
And then there are the more coherent types who more or less feel that we should respect the law and constitution and that if someone has served thier sentence, they should (more or less) be a free person again.
LIKELYHOOD OF RE-OFFENDING:
as brought up here, the rates of re-offending for sex-offenders and child molesters are extremely low, when compared to just about any other crime. So, if rates are so low, why the need for SOR’s to begin with??? Mostly because of the liberal media and sensationalism and over-reacting vigilantes who would be the same ones who’d burn “witches” back in the day.
However, i also have little sympathy for those who DO re-offend, and those people SHOULD be locked away for a long time. If a person is such a high risk, why would they be released? and if released, they should obviously be kept on a very short leash.
SOR’s are almost worthless, because they list EVERYONE who’s ever been convicted of a sex-offence with no disernation between low-risk (most) and high-risk (very few).
The highest risk are those who ARN’T on the list. And for those who’d argue that people on the list, often try to hide by not updating, ect… I’d purpose that they do so EXACTLY because of people like Abbie and AnnieX-mas. Who wants to live a life of harrassment and exile over something they did up to 24 years previous? A person who serves thier sentence and doesn’t further break the law, are supposed to be more or less forgiven. Or at least not further punished.
Anyway, I also don’t have an easy answer, but harrassment isn’t one of them. And the SOR, while is great for lighting up torches, doesn’t actually accomplish much. Probably stiffer penalties for re-offences would be a better start and actual treatment programs, rather than sensationalized and hate-mongering news casts.
For parents:
Drugs and alcohol are FAR more likely to kill/maime/harm your kids than anyone on an SOR. Cars as well. Yet, i don’t hear much in the way of making Drug Dealer Offenders Registry. Or Banning cars. Or anything else. You can live a life of fear, or you can actualy raise your kids instead of plopping an X-Box in front of them while you go Kill/maime/harrass the Sex-Offenders.
Sorry for the rant…
I don’t have kids, but even if I did, if the sex offender has to live somewhere I would prefer to have him in a concerned, family-oriented wealthy neighborhood like mine that would be likely to try to hound the guy out of town than the place he’d probably end up, with poorer families, latchkey kids, lacking the sort of neighborhood organization that would harass the guy out of there. Those kids are a lot more vulnerable than the kids on my street, I assure you. If they let him out of prison, he should be done with it. Served his time. If he isn’t safe on the streets, they shouldn’t have let him out.
This would be a very bad idea and you will not do it.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
I can see that such a thread could probably only end up a train wreck. On the other hand, it really might fight some ignorance. I suppose that is why Stage Manager might have considered it. Just to clarify matters, however, (or to fight some ignorance on my part) why the ruling? Is it because it could potentially discuss illegal behaviour?
Invidious, you can see most of the arguments (and the staff position) on the topic of “Ask the pedophile” in this thread from a few weeks ago.
As is (hopefully) obvious, “Registered Sex Offender” does not equal “pedophile.”
SlAround where I live the news made a big deal about a RSO moving into our area from a neighboring state a few years back, panicked my sister and mother to no end. Needless to say after a little research the guy was married to the “victim” he was 20 when she was 16 and statutory (sp) rape charges where filed.
After finding that out I contacted one of the local radio stations who where all over this story and led them to the information, they went as far as too offer thier apoligies for the earlier scare broadcast and chastised the local newspaper for scare mongering.
This thread is closed, for reasons that I cannot disclose because to do so would be a violation of The Chicago Reader/Straight Dope privacy policy.
Stage Manager has been banned. Again, I cannot discuss the reasons, see “privacy policy” above.
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator