So he IS a dangerous predator who has served his time. Where is he supposed to live now?
Uh, yeah. Bias meaning you don’t want to believe it. Thanks. I’ll wait for this to show up in the pit. It’s attitudes like that that in fact make sex crimes so difficult to prosecute.
You wanna pit me because I trust studies of fact more then beliefs founded on the personal experiences of people whose jobs put them in direct opposition to that which is being studied?
It’ll be a sad day for the Straight Dope if you “win” that pit thread. 
Can we examine, dispassionately, what the story is here?
A “Registered Sex Offender” is someone who has been convicted of something referenced as a “sex crime” in the jurisdiction where he or she was convicted. As someone noted above, something like Indecent Exposure (for urinating in public and being caught at it) can be a “sex crime” in some places. So can the situations mentioned above where someone has sex with a willing partner slightly under the legal age of consent.
And it can also mean a sexual predator on children.
The facts of the matter are, if someone is a RSO, he or she has either served out a sentence that the judge felt was commensurate with the crime in question, or is on probation or parole as a means of completing such a sentence. He or she has “paid the debt for his/her crime” – but is required to make his/her residence address available to the neighboring public, lest he/she have opportunity for recidivism.
I would make a guess that the overwhelming majority of RSOs are people who merely want to get on with their lives, are not interested in repeating the problem for which they were arrested and convicted. And that there are exceptions to that generalization who are likely potential recidivists.
I happen to know one RSO. He was molested as a child, repeatedly, by an uncle and two older siblings. He got drunk in his late teens and molested a niece. He is not in the slightest interested in molesting children again, has a wife and kids of his own, what seems to be a satisfying sex life with her (I haven’t investigated this end of things personally, but they clearly care about each other and demonstrate it physically in ways appropriate in front of a non-family-member friend). And yeah, it will hang over him the rest of his life. But I would be prepared to leave any child I cared about with him – and the thing I’d worry most about in such a situation is not the potential for molestation but too strict and quasi-brutal discipline (he carries on his father’s overstrictness with his own kids). He’s come to terms with the things that happened to him and whatever made him commit that molestation; he’s not about to re-offend.
Typically, the child-predator – the sort of person who is causing these concerns – gets a long prison term, which is made more miserable by the inside-the-prison ethical code that says that a child molester is lowest of the low, is on extremely strict supervision if and when he gets out, and if he should nonetheless commit a second molestation, ends up back in prison permanently.
There’s an aspect of mercy and forgiveness that’s called for here. Which does not mean abandoning intelligent caution.
Nor does any of this imply anything about concern for the victims. People generally do not grasp the sort of impact that molestation has on the child, and on the adult that he or she grows into. And my personal opinion, without cites, is that we only see the tip of the iceberg as regards the amount of molestation that has occurred.
But it sounds to me like people in this thread have staked out camps and decided to demonize the opposing side. What I’m saying is that you need to look at each situation carefully. The guy who had willing sex with his teenage girlfriend and now has a RSO tag thanks to his state’s strict laws is not going to drag your five-year-old behind bushes the first chance he gets. And he’s likely to be the RSO you live nearby.
If you do have the misfortune to live near a paroled predator, yeah, extreme caution is advised. But he does have the right to live and to try to rebuild his life if that’s what he’s trying to do – and maybe you can be the person who accepts him as someone genuinely contrite for his offense and trying to do so, instead of the person who brands him as Evil Incarnate.
Excellent post, and good advice all around, Poly.
The only thing demur on is this:
The only people i’ve taken issue with in this thread are:
-
People who take it upon themselves to illegally harrass or attack RSOs who live in their community.
-
People who call me a “sex offender apologist” when i point out that such harrassment and attacks are illegal and wrong.
If it seemed like i was demonizing those people, then they’ll have to live with it, because i take umbrage at being labelled an apologist for sex offenders.
I completely agree with you that we need to examine each case on its own merits, and that some RSOs are unlikely to pose any threat, while others should induce extreme caution in those living nearby. But, as i’m sure you’d agree, even in the latter cases, extreme caution does not (or, at least, should not) involve pre-emptive illegal activity such as harrassment or physical assault on the part of community vigilantes. And, contrary to Martin Hyde’s assertion, pointing out that fact does not make me a “sex offender apologist.”
As usual, very calmly and reasonably argued, Poly. You are of course omitting very purposely the other side. Yes, an 18 year old who is now a R.S.O. because he had sex with his 16 year old g.f. in a state where 17 is the consensual age is an R.S.O.
What about the children who read this as adults, who are parylized by the knowledge that 4 doors down is the same kind of non-human who raped them as a child. It is not a choice or topic that is passed aside as "oh well, so inflammatory, but these people get SO upset… "
You mentioned the 18 year old. Perhaps it would have been more balanced and respectful towards those reading the posts in here who are indeed victims, to mention them. In the abstract, of course.
Cause buddy, it ain’t about the 18 year old and his 16 year old g.f.
Cartooniverse
Then it’s time to call the local news and have them do a special report starting with, “Residents of this quiet community are outraged that a violent sex predator is living in their neighborhood, and they are calling for action…” Thus leading to more bricks and firebombs getting tossed through the guy’s window, not to mention higher ratings for the news station in question. Used to see those kind of stories every week…funnily, I haven’t seen one in years now. I guess the media decided that terrorism’s more effective at scaring the shit out of the populace these days. Child molestation is so passé.
That is just another form of terrorism, isn’t it?
I realize that, and that’s why I included the stuff about the child predator. I’ve seen some lives badly damaged by such people, too. If you saw my post as one-sided, that was not my intention – I tried to argue the case for the “technical offender” and at the same time make clear that I was concerned for the effects of the other, sociopathic sort.
Expanding on fessie’s post Re: recidivism rates among pedophiles
I googled “recidivism pedophiles” and found this:
from here. This also refutes Metacom’s claim that rapists are more likely to reoffend than child molestorsas does this from the “association for the treatment of sexual abusers”, which had this to say:
I thought I had read in The Gazette that a new study had challenged the previously accepted notion that sexual offenders were not likely to reoffend. I’ll see if I can find anything about it online.
Meanwhile, put me in the “they still do it, just get better at hiding it” camp. I know that life is not like tv, but I’m reminded of the rapist on Law and Order who was convicted because they found his pubic hairs on one of his victims, so when he got out of jail he just shaved his pubes. Sex drive is a natural and compelling instinct for people. If it is someone’s sexual orientation to desire children, then as long as (s)he has a sex drive, (s)he will want to have sex with children. It is naive to think that pedophiles who have not been chemically castrated are less likely to reoffend than, say, someone who knocked over a liquor store once or who had a huge grow operation in their cornfield, and really, what does it even matter how high the rate is anyway? When you consider the realities of child rape, even a 1% recidivism rate is too high.
I don’t advocate vigilante justice, but I do believe that if it is fair to deny felons the right to vote, it is also fair to deny them other freedoms, so maybe a monitoring program could be put in place through the justice system.
You have a narrow, subjective definition of risk. Your children are at risk every minute of every day, from potential harm in a thousand different ways. That’s life. Which is more risky, living in a neighborhood with a registered sex offender, or taking your children for a ride in an automobile? I suspect you have divided risks into “acceptable” and “unacceptable” based on an emotional rather than a rational or statistical basis. Parents tend to feel better when they can blame a risk on someone else (preferably a nice villian like a “sex offender”), rather than accepting the fact that they themselves expose their children to much greater risks every day, and think little of it.
You have to admit that’s a kind of appalling analogy, Fear Itself. ( your member name is one of the great ironies of this thread… ). A few thoughts, and I do not mean to attack you personally but rather the position you put forth.
-
I am guessing without any private knowledge or information of any kind that you are not a parent.
-
One can hardly draw a direct connection in terms of fear and protective instincts between ignoring a R.S.O. a few doors down and taking one’s child to day care in the car every day. Here is why:
Being the victim of sexual assault or molestation on any level is partially about loss of power. Loss of control over what happens to one’s self. If I need to take my child to daycare because I have to go to work, then as an adult I negotiate the risk factors and make the wisest and safest choices possible.
A) I use a car seat, or booster seat with appropriate seat belt restraints.
B) I do not speed. ( even if I may speed when alone )
C) I chose a route I know will be travelled by traffic that is not speeding, i.e. side
roads instead of rush-hour highway traffic.
D) I attempt to be as focused and aware as possible.
What I do not do is blithely ignore the risks. That is because I am in control of the risks to a degree. Yes, to a degree so don’t jump me here because innocent careful drivers die in accidents daily. I’m not hijacking, please don’t. I said, to a degree.
Unlike the above scenario, I discover that I live 4 doors down from a convicted felon who is a R.S.O. ( Of course, I chose 4 doors down because percieved fears increase with proximity- I do believe that R.S.O.'s are cowardly enough to work close to home and therefore living 9 miles from one in my own mind lowers the risk factors to near nil ). I find this out and have to make judgements regarding the safety of my children. They are based on the following:
-
The age of my children. Not their genders. Whether or not the R.S.O. is a same-gender abuser is entirely irrelevant to me. I want to know, as Poly correctly pointed out, if the offender is someone basically near-age to their victim but convicted much more on the technicalities of law then a true adult victimizing children. ( And yes, since this is not a purely cold detached debate, I will offer an emotional response and say that an 18 year old caught with his 16 year old gf in a 17 year old consent state is guilty by technicality but an 18 year old caught abusing a 9 year old is no different - to me -than a 42 year old doing same ). I would want to know if this person was convicted for abusing small children or young pubsecents. Why? Assessing risk factors. If he is drawn to very young pre-pubescents then, while I would still work with my children to develop strategies of protection and safety, I would not be quite as scared for my pubescent 13 year old daughter.
-
Whether or not there is general knowledge regarding this individual in the community. No way am I gonna turn this into a Pit Thread and so all I would say to this regard is that I would have a one on one discussion with local police, or F.B.I.-whomever would be appropriate.
-
What level of self-protection my children were afforded. They both are 1st Don Black Belts and I feel honestly that this is totally useless. Unless you are a sparring person and have learned to deal with violent attacks daily or weekly in tournament attacks, the martial arts training is useless in a real life adrenaline-suffused attack. So, how could I empower them to fend off an approach or attack? ( These are useful tools, R.S.O. aside of course. )
-
What constraints may be applied post-release to the R.S.O. If the person’s whereabouts are tracked nonstop, that wouldn’t make me thrilled but it would make me realize that their recidivism rate would be hedged maybe, a bit, by the fear of re-incarceration.
Would I move? No. Would I alter how my children deal with the immediate world around them? Without doubt. The small air horns that one can carry are particularly useful. Arming them with basic cautions and this is R.S.O. irrelevant in this day and age, as mentioned before, include how to be more aware of one’s surroundings and the adults around you.
Would I exercise my right to walk up and down my block a lot more than I used to? You betcha. Seems to me that it’s very hard to arrest someone for harrassment for getting a little light cardio workout by going for brisk walks. If there is a normal average city block, or suburban block with sidewalks ( I lack sidewalks in my town, one walks the shoulders at serious person peril ), then the sidewalks could well have a few people here and there going for brisk walks from sunup to sundown. Indictable? You’re going to arrest people for trying to live longer by walking a lot? Methinks not. A community could easily keep a close eye on a dangerous R.S.O. without violating a single law.
Please explain how this makes your argument more valid than mine.
Very clever. I can hardly respond to your post without jumping in here, as it it at the center of your argument. Whether you are in control or not is not the issue; it is the relative risks of the two activities. As I said, **Which is more risky, living in a neighborhood with a registered sex offender, or taking your children for a ride in an automobile? ** If you lack the statistical knowledge to answer this question, then your concern is based on ignorance and emotion, not reason.
i’ve gotten pretty riled up on here over this subject, w/ closed minded people who love to rant vigilante propoganda… However, i have a really easy solution to the problem… (not that everyone here will agree, but i think it’s a good idea)
the SOR should only list those who “Constitute a serious threat to the public”. I.E. Child “predators” and/or “predatory rapists”.
Some will argue, anyone who’s committed a sex crime, esp against a child is “predatory”. For those people, they’ll never see the light and will continue to live in a closet w/ an itchy trigger finger.
I think several of us, can see the difference between someone who committed a crime against someone they knew, as opposed to someone camped out near a park, school, (or for adult victims:) parking lots, etc.
Several have stated time and again, (to deaf ears) that those who commit against someone they know, are vastly less likely to re-offend, than someone who is TRUELY predatory.
The SOR’s in thier current formats are utterly meaningless. If they only listed those who are a REAL threat, then it would hold some kind of meaning and could be of use as a means of caution (not a public hit-list that several on here currently use them as).
In Michigan, there are currently 40,000 people on the SOR. Yes, 40 THOUSAND. If all you morons out there who think the re-offense rate is at or near 100%, that would mean there will be at least 40 THOUSAND new cases by already convicted people, ADDED to all new cases… If you think there are that many cases out there, you are seriously deluded. Not to mention, it’s a forced listing of 25 years. All this in less than 10 years. How many people do you think will be on it in 15 more years when the first of the listed finally start to come off of it. Every zip code will have HUNDREDS of people. The list will be so long, you’d have to make it a full time occupation to go murder all of them. And that’s just Michigan.
So all you vigilante killers out there, take note, and start stocking up on ammo. You got your work cut out for you.
That should have read: park, school, (or for adult victims: ) parking lots, etc.
And so it is with teaching your children how to avoid potential sex predators. Simple things like, don’t get too close to a car when somebody stops and asks for directions, don’t take a shortcut through a secluded park (especially alone), be aware of your surroundings, etc. There are plenty of resources which give advice on this topic, and it’s prudent for parents to know them and make sure their kids know them, just as it is for remembering to buckle your seat belt.
And this is the crux of the argument, the reason I started this crazy thread in the first place, about why Megan’s Law doesn’t work. Because this information is NOT included in the registries. Parents see someone’s name on the list, and immediately assume the worst. This is what makes it a bad law.
You make it sound like the pervo 4 doors down is like some kind of trap-door spider, eager to pounce on any child that crosses their doorstep! Most offenders do not kidnap and rape their victims. It happens, but it’s rare. Of course, the media likes to play up these stories as if it’s typical behavoir of sex offenders, so I can understand where your confusion comes from.
What most pedophiles do is engage in a form of seduction, not entirely unlike the way heterosexual males woo a female they want to have sex with. This can involve anything from the stereotypical offering of candy to something as innocuous as offering them a summer job. Pedophiles are also VERY adept at sensing what’s deficient in a child’s family life, and providing those very needs that the child lacks. You’ll often hear offenders say that the children came on to them, and initiated the contact…this can and does happen, more often than you realize. This is because children are quite self-aware and wise to what adults want from them, and a child from a bad home life may decide it’s better to offer sex to an adult who will at least give them love and compassion and treat them with respect, as opposed to staying home where the parents do nothing but yell at them all the time.
So basically, the best protection you can give your children is to be a good parent. This alone will go a very long way in protecting them from deviants who seek out the most needy and attention-starved children.
I stopped reading right there. This mindless crap suggests that you’re interested in using emotion rather than reason to justify your position.
Poly, I thought your post was fine.
But the question still remains unanswered: where is the “icky” sex offender supposed to live once he’s been set free by the system? Is it up to you, the citizen, to check with your local police station and find out where the registered offenders are? Are you aware that the pressure put upon registered offenders by the community is so heavy, and sometimes so dangerous, that they frequently don’t bother to register?
So you find out Mr. Icky is living next door. You feel that this is a threat, even though the system has given him his freedom?
Would you move? Take your chances? Harrass him until he moves away? Vote to have him run out of town?
Pity. The bolding, in fact, is in deference to the environment on the Boards in general right now regarding personal information and the dissemination thereof. However, feel free to spin it like a top if it pleases you !!
Fear Itself, it makes my argument more valid than yours because there is no level playing field at all here. Parents make decisions and have judgements and responses based on issues and connections that a non-parent can never and will never understand.
You can refuse to believe that because perhaps you are not a parent and therefore wish to not be seen as lacking in perspective, but it is the simple truth. You’re going to ask me for a cite proving that parents know what it is to be a childs parent and non-parents do not know what it is to be a childs parent. Good luck. 
Lest anyone doubt, I address the statement above to Fear Itself because of what that poster said directly to me. Not as an attack or derisive flame of one particular Doper. My statement above is addressed towards anyone reading this thread who may be in a similar life situation.