PDA

View Full Version : Wow, is it time to move or time to stay?



BigDon
2007-Aug-26, 10:29 PM
Wow, I didn't believe my friend at first til I saw this. Anybody top this?

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/cgi/prosoma.dll?zoomAction=Box&zoomAction=clickcenter&zoomAction=clickoffender&lastName=&firstName=&Address=&City=&zipcode=&searchDistance=.75&City2=&countyLocation=&zipcode2=94080&SelectCounty=&ParkName=&searchDistance2=.75&City3=&zipcode3=&countyLocation3=&schoolName=&searchDistance3=.75&City4=&zipcode4=&countyLocation4=&refineID=&pan=&distacross=107211&centerlat=38409907&centerlon=-121514242&starlat=&starlon=&startext=&x1=&y1=&x2=&y2=&mapwidth=525&mapheight=400&zoom=&searchBy=ziplist&id=&docountycitylist=2&OFDTYPE=&lang=ENGLISH

BigDon
2007-Aug-26, 10:30 PM
Wow, I didn't believe my friend at first til I saw this. Anybody top this? This is actually down from the 130 I first saw.

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/cgi/prosoma.dll?zoomAction=Box&zoomAction=clickcenter&zoomAction=clickoffender&lastName=&firstName=&Address=&City=&zipcode=&searchDistance=.75&City2=&countyLocation=&zipcode2=94080&SelectCounty=&ParkName=&searchDistance2=.75&City3=&zipcode3=&countyLocation3=&schoolName=&searchDistance3=.75&City4=&zipcode4=&countyLocation4=&refineID=&pan=&distacross=107211&centerlat=38409907&centerlon=-121514242&starlat=&starlon=&startext=&x1=&y1=&x2=&y2=&mapwidth=525&mapheight=400&zoom=&searchBy=ziplist&id=&docountycitylist=2&OFDTYPE=&lang=ENGLISH

Neverfly
2007-Aug-26, 10:38 PM
Ok, I don't get it. What am I missing here?

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-26, 10:40 PM
Nope, I only have 69 in my area: http://sex-offender.vsp.virginia.gov/sor/servlet/SOR?form=4&ftr=*&iio=N&cnn=&zip=22201&otype=*&cz=22201,22203,22230,22205,22207,22209,22219,22211 ,22204,22217&page=1

Lurker
2007-Aug-26, 10:41 PM
Yeah... and if there were a murderer's registration list or an armed robbery registration list, I wonder what we would find... There are all sorts in our society and, except for sex offenders, we don't keep tabs on them after their sentences have been served.

Doodler
2007-Aug-26, 11:16 PM
Could say a lot about post-sentence persecution, the ridiculous violations of a Constitutional Amendment addressing excessive punishments, and what the proper solution to a crime which may involve a high recidivist rate that no taxpayer in the country (regardless of number of offspring) would be willing to pay....but this ain't the place.

Bottom line, the registry is only the ones they catch, if you think about the statistical sampling provided by ad hoc surveyors (otherwise known as Dateline NBC), the odds are, moving to avoid a known will likely land you in range of an unknown.

If you want to move someplace where none exist, there's always an ocean capable houseboat.

BigDon
2007-Aug-26, 11:18 PM
Wow, where did the other two replies go?

Doodler
2007-Aug-26, 11:24 PM
Dunno, yours was the only one I saw when I posted.

Hope you don't take it as me being too cynical, but lets face it, you can't swing an orange jumpsuit in a neighborhood and not hit someone who's done time for something, it seems.

Plus you have to ask, which is worse, the devil you know, or the devil you don't?

cjl
2007-Aug-26, 11:26 PM
Wow, where did the other two replies go?

Here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/63928-wow-time-move-time-stay.html)

Lurker
2007-Aug-26, 11:28 PM
Hey what happened to this post of mine...


Yeah... and if there were a murderer's registration list or an armed robbery registration list, I wonder what we would find... There are all sorts in our society and, except for sex offenders, we don't keep tabs on them after their sentences have been served.

BigDon
2007-Aug-26, 11:30 PM
cjl, now I'm confused.

Doodler
2007-Aug-26, 11:45 PM
You double posted, BD. Happens a bit, that I've seen. If you tap a mod on the shoulder, they can merge'em.

Ronald Brak
2007-Aug-27, 01:02 AM
I don't get it. If it's thought they are going to commit crime again, why did they let them out? I'm not saying prisoners should be dumped back into society without oversight, but if warnings need to be posted on the internet then it seems that there must be grounds to suspect they are still fairly dangerous.

Jim
2007-Aug-27, 01:23 AM
You double posted, BD. Happens a bit, that I've seen. If you tap a mod on the shoulder, they can merge'em.

Merged.

Delvo
2007-Aug-27, 01:41 AM
I don't get it. If it's thought they are going to commit crime again, why did they let them out?Because the time was up, and you just can't keep people after the time is up.


...if warnings need to be posted on the internet then it seems that there must be grounds to suspect they are still fairly dangerous.That is the belief now, but it wasn't when the lengths of their jail terms were established.

Gillianren
2007-Aug-27, 03:29 AM
Sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism. Pedophilia, for example, is incurable; pedophiles never stop wanting little kids. Hence the registry--the theory is, if you know who you're looking at, your kid is that much safer. Very few murders are random; many, many sex crimes are.

Ronald Brak
2007-Aug-27, 03:44 AM
Sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism. Pedophilia, for example, is incurable; pedophiles never stop wanting little kids. Hence the registry--the theory is, if you know who you're looking at, your kid is that much safer. Very few murders are random; many, many sex crimes are.

How long has this been going on? Surely people would have realized by now if a certain group of offenders is not safe to release and not release them?

Doodler
2007-Aug-27, 06:41 AM
In terms of sex crimes against kids, a number of places are going "two strikes and you're dead".

As for Gillian's statement about sexual assaults, I call bovine waste. Sexual assaults are no different than murders. In order to exploit the necessary vulnerabilities, some familiarity is required.

As for incurable, I'm also hurling the stinky stuff. No behavior pattern is ever so ingrained that it cannot be undone. Whether the effort to counter it is deemed worthwhile is the issue. I imagine it would be far easier to recondition a pedophile than it would be a child soldier conditioned to violence from their first conscious memories, yet extraordinary efforts to do so are invested.

Sex crimes carry an ick factor that makes recovering the criminal undesirable from a social/moral point of view. The potential to do so is already there, its just a matter of someone swimming through some deep sewage in said individual's mind to pull it off. Not something many people, particularly given the US's ever increasingly vindictive nature towards any ex-con, are willing to bear. Tis becoming easier to avenge than to forgive.

BigDon
2007-Aug-27, 09:06 AM
Wow, A nice fresh steaming Doodlerism.

Haven't seen a proper one in days.

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-27, 12:31 PM
How long has this been going on? Surely people would have realized by now if a certain group of offenders is not safe to release and not release them?

Our justice system works by release date and not by reformed and rehabilitated community safe people that have passed through the system. Currently here now there is a closed trial system won by the lawyers defending a man who raped strangled and broke every limb of then killed a very pretty young girl in a random attack, she was eleven.

They are doing this to work on getting a release date because no jury would be able to look past what he did. Even if he serves his sentence the most the community can know is from a sex offender register.

Why should society ever have a place for someone like that?

farmerjumperdon
2007-Aug-27, 12:42 PM
Can only go by what I've read from the experts, and that is that Gillianren is correct. Sure there is a cure; it involves some pretty radical surgery. Other than that, the behavior has shown itself to be incorrectable.

Not sure what is meant by "some familiarity" but most murders are commited by people with a well established relationship - business partners, lovers, neighbors, co-workers, family, etc. Most pedophiles only know their victim as a target. Check out the research on the topic.

As for the sensitivity involved. That is only natural. In most cases you are looking at an adult preying on a child - predation of the worst sort. For the record, I think anyone who preys upon and acts out violence against others deserves special trreatment - so to speak. Mostly because there is so little defense against someone that strikes from out of nowhere and without warning. I mean, you can see a barfight or road rage or a relationship gone bad coming. A stranger in hiding, stalking and watching for moments of vulnerability, is nearly impossible to defend against without taking radical and nearly impractical precautions.

I would see nothing wrong with prominently displayed public notices for all crimes above the misdemeanor level. In my eyes, people who commit violent crimes are a menace to society and forego their right to keep that fact private; just as they forego their right to many other freedoms.

weatherc
2007-Aug-27, 01:05 PM
There is another facet of the sex offender registry to consider. Consider the following:

If a thirty year old has sex with a ten year old, that is considered wrong by just about any sane person. However, how wrong is it when an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old? While this is still any parent's nightmare, most people wouldn't consider this to be an offense that needs to be punished by law. However, if a parent finds out about the situation and presses charges, then the 18 year old can easily be convicted of statutory rape.

Here's the important bit: in both of these situations, the convicted person winds up on the sexual offender registry. The law makes no distinction between the creepy child molester and the 18 year old. The registry doesn't specify whether the sex offender in your neighborhood might be out to get your children or was just a teenager having sex with someone close to his age, and made a bad decision.

While I like the idea of knowing if a sexual predator lives in my neighborhood, I would also like to know if they are really worth worrying about, or just the victims of youthful indiscretion. As the situation currently stands, the law doesn't give us any way to tell the difference, and can ruin someone's life unnecessarily.

Stuart van Onselen
2007-Aug-27, 02:18 PM
One of the accusations I've heard levelled at the sex-criminal register, is that innocent people end up getting on it. And not just the 18yo with the statutory rape charge.

People with "indecent exposure" raps get put on it too. But sometimes these people are not "flashers", they are drunk twits urinating in public, or a homeless guy that lives in his car changing his clothes.

Unfotunately, I don't have any references at hand.

The motivations ascribed to the DAs who shaft these characters include ambition, vindictivness and butt-covering. No DA wants to be the one who didn't put some guy on the list when that guy then does commit a crime, so they take the "better safe than sorry" attitude.

And if you can't see why this (if it is confirmed to be true) would be a gross miscarriage of justice, there is no hope for you.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 02:25 PM
That exactly happened to me.

Late night and nowwhere to stop and go (wasn't drunk) I decided a park would do the trick. It had nice bushes...(I was young)

Halfway through a cop snuck up on me and slammed the lights on. Ugh.
I got two tickets: Public exposure and violation of park curfew.

The DA and judge discussed it briefly before I arrived it seems, and I showed up to learn that I was charged only with violation of park curfew, the other charge was dropped due to "Lack of evidence" I couldn't help but laugh at the reason it was dropped:p
But they were thinking in my favor and it is much appreciated that I had a decent DA in my county.

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-27, 02:36 PM
I've been stewing on this since I read it a couple of hours ago.

I do not deny that there is a huge distinction between young love that for what ever reason was inappropriate, that happens, it is life. Otherwise where would romance be?

It is the hardened offenders that are purely predators that I just don't want anywhere near children. What about the rights of an innocent child and the chance to grow up and discover life for themselves?

While I do not want to deny the rights of a serious offender to live as a human being, enjoy any luxury they earn whatever. I do want to deny them the predatory right to live among other defenseless young human beings.

That they can reform, repent fine. They have every right to success and happiness away from those who are even more entitled to the right to success, joy and happiness because society has a duty to protect its children.

Cougar
2007-Aug-27, 02:46 PM
"Lack of evidence"...
How embarrassing for you. :lol:

Doodler
2007-Aug-27, 03:14 PM
even more entitled to the right

What country are you living in?

tofu
2007-Aug-27, 03:20 PM
The law makes no distinction between the creepy child molester and the 18 year old.

exactly. Somewhere I saw a website with a long list of horror stories of what gets people on the list. It will really scare you. Someone pulls to the side of the highway and walks into the woods to urinate = sex offender (they should have peed in their car I guess). Someone who catches a neighborhood kid vandalizing his property, calls the cops, and (obviously) has to hold the kid until the cops arrive, is charged with battery of a minor = sex offender. An 18 year old has sex with her 17.5 year old boyfriend = sex offender. A very slightly intoxicated woman flashes her breasts = sex offender.

These people's lives are ruined, absolutely. That's the society we live in.

http://www.timesreporter.com/index.php?ID=71926&r=0

The sex offender list, and this idea that the government has the right to brand people, is the largest step toward oppressive totalitarianism that I've seen in my lifetime. In time, the idea will be expanded to all sorts of other lists. If you don't think the right way or act exactly the right way, you'll be put on some sort of list. Did you protest the WTO? Well, a lot of anarchists did too. We should just lump everyone who protests into the same group.

Anyone who doesn't toe the politically-correct party line is going to be branded. If you don't wear a little ribbon on your label indicating your "awareness" of some issue, well then you're obviously a hate monger, racist, sexist, homophobe and we'll just make you register and publish your name so that you can never get a job. It'll happen. Mark my words.



Sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism.

And you know what, Gillianren is absolutely right. But the way we've handled it is absolutely wrong. If someone is a real threat to society, put them in a hospital. Why are we so weak as a culture that we can't bring ourselves to do that? Real pedophilia is a mental illness defined as sexual attraction to a person who is not sexually mature. Those people should be locked in a hospital unless and until there is some kind of treatment that will allow them to live a happy, normal life.

jrkeller
2007-Aug-27, 03:31 PM
The registry doesn't specify whether the sex offender in your neighborhood might be out to get your children or was just a teenager having sex with someone close to his age, and made a bad decision.

In Texas they do. It lists victims age, date of occurance, jail time, parole time, yearly pictures, etc. Everything you need to know to make an informed decision about your safety or your kids safety.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 03:35 PM
How embarrassing for you. :lol:

That is exactly why I couldn't help but laugh. And yes, I busted out laughing when he said it:p

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 03:38 PM
Gillianren was right.
Michael Noonan was trying hard to be nice....
Tofu was right but
I disagree.

Hospitalizing a hardcore sex offender isn't the answer either. It's a waste of resources from someone who isnt likely to overcome his sexual nature.

There may not be a perfect fix, that everyone will like and agree with. But there is a distinction that says, "Keep them away from the kids."

The only flaw that galls me is that they laws are ridiculous about such as what Tofu posted about a dumb mistake branding you for life.
A single mom can't pick up her kids from the school because once at Mardi Gras...

weatherc
2007-Aug-27, 03:49 PM
In Texas they do. It lists victims age, date of occurance, jail time, parole time, yearly pictures, etc. Everything you need to know to make an informed decision about your safety or your kids safety.That's a better way to do it, in my opinion. While there is still a significant chance that someone could be convicted wrongly of such a crime (for example, a spouse in a bitter divorce accusing the other spouse of abusing the child), at least that can weed out a lot of the less serious cases.

Tofu, if anyone knew of a way to treat child molesters, I would like to have them treated instead of sitting in jail their entire lives. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone claiming that it's even possible. Since I'm not a member of the medical community, it's quite possible that this is just ignorance on my part.

For that matter, if we even knew of a way to actually rehabilitate any kind of criminal, I would be all for rehabilitation instead of long jail sentences. Unfortunately, I don't think we know how to do that, either.

tofu
2007-Aug-27, 04:50 PM
I would like to have them treated instead of sitting in jail their entire lives.

There is, I hope, a big difference between jail and a hospital. In a hospital, you are free except for one thing: that you cannot leave the confines of the hospital. In a jail you're never free. You wake when they tell you, eat when they tell you, shower when they tell you. Your whole life is under lock and key.

So what I'm saying is, put a child molester in jail for 10 years or 15 years or whatever you think is fair, then parolle them to a hospital for treatment. What we seem to do instead is cast such a wide net with this registration program, that someone caught urinating is told by the judge, "well it's really not that serious of a crime so your punishment is community service - but oh sorry, you also have to go on the sex offender list for the rest of your life."

That's madness!

Lurker
2007-Aug-27, 04:54 PM
I still have not seen a reason to single out sex offenders. There are those who are, for one reason or another, a chronic source of difficulty for any culture or society. The conditions that cause this sort of behavior can lead to behavior that ranges from disruptive to very dangerous. These individuals also take actions that range from loud, angry behavior to armed assault or sexual assault, to murder and serial murder.

I strongly believe that if the conditions that lead to this sort of continued behavior pattern could be detected or diagnosed that action should be taken to either treat the condition or prevent the reintroduction of the individual into society. Unfortunately, our understanding of these issues is currently rudimentary and unreliable. I think great care must be used lest too many mistakes be made in the use of such methods to deprive an individual of their freedom. In the future this may change.

One last point, however, I think it is a terrible injustice to apply such measure against sex offenders or to single out any single crime. I think that crime is crime... the offender should be sanctioned in measure to what society considers appropriate for his crime... with review by an independent judiciary.

weatherc
2007-Aug-27, 05:12 PM
I still have not seen a reason to single out sex offenders.Well, I think that child molestation, due to the nature of the crime and who the victims are, can be said to be different in people's minds than most other kinds of crime.

For example, if someone moves into your neighborhood after being in jail for tax evasion, I don't think most people would care very much. I don't think most people stay up at night, wondering if their children might start spending time with the tax evader, and decide they don't want to pay taxes themselves.

However, with a sexual predator, it's a different story. If you know that someone in your neighborhood was convicted of child molestation, you can take extra measures to make sure that your children avoid that person.

In addition, while I wouldn't favor putting just any sex offender (those guilty of date rape, statutory rape, indecent exposure, etc.) on the sex offender registry, I think a case can be made for those that take advantage of children in such a horrible way, especially since, as you pointed out, we don't know any way to cure these people. Child molestation isn't simply an act that someone does by mistake; it's a problem that goes to the very core of the person that does it. I don't think the same can be said of embezzlement or tax evasion.

Lurker
2007-Aug-27, 05:30 PM
Well, I think that child molestation, due to the nature of the crime and who the victims are, can be said to be different in people's minds than most other kinds of crime.

For example, if someone moves into your neighborhood after being in jail for tax evasion, I don't think most people would care very much. I don't think most people stay up at night, wondering if their children might start spending time with the tax evader, and decide they don't want to pay taxes themselves.

Hmmmm... and other types of assult, murder of degrees other than first degree, armed robber, kidnapping, and a long list of other crimes where the individual may well be released are not individuals that members of society would like to avoid?


However, with a sexual predator, it's a different story. If you know that someone in your neighborhood was convicted of child molestation, you can take extra measures to make sure that your children avoid that person.

Hmmmm... sexual predator?? If an individual is not expected to commit such a crime again, our society is structured to give them a second chance. If such an individual is expected to attempt such a crime again they should not be released until that expectation is removed. If someone beats a child severely but not with sexual intent and is released after 5 to 15 years, perhpas 7 with good behavior, they would not be on the list, but perhaps dangerous... perhaps not. I am not insensitive to the issues, I am not insensitive to the fears, I simply think that sexual crimes are singled out rather than a reasonable, comprehensive approach being considered.



In addition, while I wouldn't favor putting just any sex offender (those guilty of date rape, statutory rape, indecent exposure, etc.) on the sex offender registry, I think a case can be made for those that take advantage of children in such a horrible way, especially since, as you pointed out, we don't know any way to cure these people.

Nor do we know if they need to be cured or if they will repeat such a crime. In this country one is innocent of a crime until convicted. If someone has not committed a crime it would set a dangerous precedent to press sanctions against them for a crime they may commit.



Child molestation isn't simply an act that someone does by mistake; it's a problem that goes to the very core of the person that does it. I don't think the same can be said of embezzlement or tax evasion.
Hmmmmm... I see, then they should be placed in the medical system while they are treated. Releasing them into society and using registration adds continued sanctions to their crime rather than examining the crime and handling it appropriately.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 05:47 PM
For example, if someone moves into your neighborhood after being in jail for tax evasion, I don't think most people would care very much. I don't think most people stay up at night, wondering if their children might start spending time with the tax evader, and decide they don't want to pay taxes themselves.


this is one of those liners..

I didnt laugh out right- just giggled inwardly.

Then I read the rest of the thread...
Read this again and giggled inwardly again...

I think I may end up giggling inwardly the rest of the day on this one...

weatherc
2007-Aug-27, 05:52 PM
If such an individual is expected to attempt such a crime again they should not be released until that expectation is removed.Here is where I will agree with you.

With child molestation, there is never an expectation that a person won't commit a similar crime. Unlike some other kinds of crime, there is no program that can help these people. If the registry were deemed illegal, then I would hope that the law could change to keep child molesters in jail for life, with no opportunity for parole (unfortunately, this wouldn't apply to those already convicted, just those convicted after the change to the law, so those already serving time will have to be released on schedule).


If someone has not committed a crime it would set a dangerous precedent to press sanctions against them for a crime they may commit.I don't recall anyone in this discussion advocating any kind of pre-crime treatment of individuals. I think I've been pretty careful to note that we're talking about those already convicted of the crime; I certainly wouldn't want anyone on any kind of registry who was simply accused of such a thing, but hasn't yet gone through due process.


Hmmmmm... I see, then they should be placed in the medical system while they are treated.Unless you know something that no one else on the entire planet knows, there is no cure for pedophilia. There is no treatment. There is no program that we know of now that can fix these people, then allow them to be released. If there were, there wouldn't be any need for a sexual offenders registry. It's not something we can just go inside of someone's head and "fix."

As I already mentioned, I would prefer life in prison for such people. However, our legal system has yet to catch up to the reality of the situation, and treats pedophiles like other criminals, when there are significant differences.

weatherc
2007-Aug-27, 06:00 PM
this is one of those liners..

I didnt laugh out right- just giggled inwardly.

Then I read the rest of the thread...
Read this again and giggled inwardly again...

I think I may end up giggling inwardly the rest of the day on this one...I'm glad you got a kick out of it. :) I think it gets my point across...

Lurker
2007-Aug-27, 06:09 PM
Here is where I will agree with you.

With child molestation, there is never an expectation that a person won't commit a similar crime. Unlike some other kinds of crime, there is no program that can help these people. If the registry were deemed illegal, then I would hope that the law could change to keep child molesters in jail for life, with no opportunity for parole (unfortunately, this wouldn't apply to those already convicted, just those convicted after the change to the law, so those already serving time will have to be released on schedule).

My emphasis... this is not my field. I would expect that if this is true, then the law should be constructed such that the individual is not released back into society. In a society such as ours, the certainty must be beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why, for any crime, repeat offenders tend to have their freedoms restricted more severely than first time offenders. There are many cases of individuals who have been released after a first crime only to go on to commit more violent crimes; in some cases even murder. However, we do not lock up all first offenders on the chance that some may go on to commit more violent crimes in the future.



Unless you know something that no one else on the entire planet knows, there is no cure for pedophilia. There is no treatment. There is no program that we know of now that can fix these people, then allow them to be released. If there were, there wouldn't be any need for a sexual offenders registry. It's not something we can just go inside of someone's head and "fix."

As I said, this is not my field. I would expect this issue to be debated by those in the appropriate medical fields. It is not that I know more... it is that I know less and would expect the experts to make this determination. Not one individual, not you, not me... but a quorum of experts representing the spectrum of opinion and knowledge in this area.



As I already mentioned, I would prefer life in prison for such people. However, our legal system has yet to catch up to the reality of the situation, and treats pedophiles like other criminals, when there are significant differences.
It seems to me that the legal system has looked to the relevant medical fields and found conflicting opinion and is somewhat hamstrung until a greater consensus is reached within that field in these matters.

Fazor
2007-Aug-27, 06:17 PM
Okay, I'm jumping into this conversation late (per usual). I'm glad to see everyone discussing such a complicated subject.

I have long held the personal belief that sexual preditors can never be cured, unless perhapse through some far-out clockwork orange style associative "theropy", but alas that would be considered cruel and unusual.

And Doodler, it's quite well documented that many sexual assaults are indeed totally random in nature. They are opportunity criminals. Yes, you have inter-family sexual offenders (like the creepy uncle) and you have school date-rape type offences, but many times the offender doesn't want the victim to know who they are. Rape someone you know, and eventually they'll tell someone. Murder is different; once they're dead it doesn't matter if they knew you or not, they won't tell.

Anyway the question becomes what do you do with said offenders. Megan's Law helps, but then you also have the problem that "innocent" or relatively innocent people will be labled and stigmatized within the community. Like the 18 year old that was arrested for sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend. Is that illegal? Yes. Is that a sex-crime? Yes. But is he really a threat to society and your children? Probably not.

It's definately a complex and interesting issue.

novaderrik
2007-Aug-27, 06:18 PM
the best way to take care of the sex offender problem- the and especially the pedophiles- is to not give them any special protections while they are in prison. throw them in general population with all the lifers that have no hope of ever seeing the outside of he prison again and make then wear a pretty pink jumpsuit.
either that, or a no rules, anything goes closed door meeting with the parents and relatives of the people they victimized.
go ahead- call me an ignorant redneck. i can take it..

weatherc
2007-Aug-27, 06:24 PM
the best way to take care of the sex offender problem- the and especially the pedophiles- is to not give them any special protections while they are in prison. throw them in general population with all the lifers that have no hope of ever seeing the outside of he prison again and make then wear a pretty pink jumpsuit.
either that, or a no rules, anything goes closed door meeting with the parents and relatives of the people they victimized.
go ahead- call me an ignorant redneck. i can take it..While the rational, civilized part of me (as well as the Constitution and various due process laws) is against this, I have to be honest and admit that the lizard part of my brain likes the idea...

Lurker
2007-Aug-27, 06:29 PM
While the rational, civilized part of me (as well as the Constitution and various due process laws) is against this, I have to be honest and admit that the lizard part of my brain likes the idea...
yeah... let us kill the sick and deformed among us... gods how I hope our experiment in representative democracy never comes to this... it sickens me...

They are sick, ill, twisted... what's your excuse!!!

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-27, 06:38 PM
Is there a reason the non-pedofile portion of the sex offender registry isn't being discussed? I think here is where Doodlers point plays out best. I know of an angry disgruntled ex-spouse who assaulted his ex-wife and did time for it. Not a repeat offender type. Provoked isn't a fair description to the victim - but the ex wife was a drug addict who cheated a fair amount. This person is on the registered sex offender list in our state even though he did his time and has never been shown to be a danger to children.

I could see a pedofile list "for the sake of the children" as they say - but currently the list is far to inclusive of all crimes regardless of circumstance. I'm not sure that an 18 year old dealing with the vengeful parents of a 16 year old deserves to be categorized as a danger to children for the rest of his life.

And if it is "for the sake of the children" - why not a registered drug dealer list? Wouldn't it be helpful to parents to know that the guy two doors down was convicted for dealing narcotics a year ago?

weatherc
2007-Aug-27, 06:39 PM
yeah... let us kill the sick and deformed among us... gods how I hope our experiment in representative democracy never comes to this... it sickens me...

They are sick, ill, twisted... what's your excuse!!!Ummm... I think you're taking my remark a little more seriously than I intended it to be...

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 06:42 PM
I'll be hornswoggled if'n ah doesn't step up n agree with that thar iggorant rednick.
Datburn it!

Lurker
2007-Aug-27, 06:43 PM
Ummm... I think you're taking my remark a little more seriously than I intended it to be...

Yeah... isn't that the excuse anyone uses when the make such ugly comments... the statement looks pretty clear to me...


While the rational, civilized part of me (as well as the Constitution and various due process laws) is against this, I have to be honest and admit that the lizard part of my brain likes the idea...
You don't just want to be barbaric with those who offend your civilized sensibilities... who they are... what they are... what might be the cause of their illness... would seem of little interest to you...

Well as someone who has a chronic mental illness that can be treated but never cured, I find the attitude offensive...

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 06:47 PM
Lurker, you jumped the gun again:neutral:

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 06:49 PM
Lurker, try being sweet compassionate and understanding to some smug smirking sicko that raped and murdered your child. You will find the "lizard part" of your brain to be quite reasonable:whistle:

The statement is not directed at someone who has another incurable mental disease any more than it applies to a physical incurable disease like cancer.

Lurker
2007-Aug-27, 06:52 PM
Lurker, you jumped the gun again:neutral:
Maybe... but I think the idea that "these people" should be put out into the prison population to be killed off by their fellow inmates is pretty ugly. As I said, they are sick... they are often ill and cannot make sense of their lives. That setting them up for slaughter in this fashion would appeal on any level to someone sickens me.

These people can be treated in this fashion because their illness sickens people... there are times that I wish I had a heart condition rather than the condition I had... Illness is illness and there should be care and sympathy with those afflicted.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 06:57 PM
Maybe... but I think the idea that "these people" should be put out into the prison population to be killed off by their fellow inmates is pretty ugly. As I said, they are sick... they are often ill and cannot make sense of their lives. That setting them up for slaughter in this fashion would appeal on any level to someone sickens me.

These people can be treated in this fashion because their illness sickens people... there are times that I wish I had a heart condition rather than the condition I had... Illness is illness and there should be care and sympathy with those afflicted.

You are trying to relate to them on a personal level
Simply because they are sick and you say you have a sickness.
It isn't the same.
That's like saying I should be sympathetic because a serial killer is sick- if I have Cancer, because I'm sick too :doh:
Making the excuse that a rapist or pedophile is sick does not detract one bit from the evil that they do- and enjoy doing.

Call them sick all you want- I agree. They are sick. They still will get neither sympathy nor mercy from me<shrug>
There is a difference between having an illness and knowingly doing harm. And getting pleasure from doing it.

Fazor
2007-Aug-27, 07:01 PM
Lurker, before you go name-calling and finger pointing, consider this. If you're five-year-old sister, or worse, 5 year old daughter, got raped and murdered, would you not feel any ill will or notion of violence towards the offender? If you can honestly say you wouldn't feel that in any way, then you're certianly a much better person than myself.

No, brutatilty is not the answer, but that doesn't mean that anyone who feels that way towards these offenderes is a bad person.

You say they need treatment. Ideally yes. The problem is, none of the treatment seems to be working. Lets go back to the "what if it was your daughter" scenario. Now how do you feel when you find out that the guy who raped and murdered her had been arrested 2 or 3 times in the past for it?

Like I said, I like this subject because there's no easy answer. But I did want to say how much I resent your demonization of nova.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 07:03 PM
Chiiii...
Fazor are you set on "stun" or "kill"?
:think:

Lurker
2007-Aug-27, 07:13 PM
Lurker, before you go name-calling and finger pointing, consider this. If you're five-year-old sister, or worse, 5 year old daughter, got raped and murdered, would you not feel any ill will or notion of violence towards the offender? If you can honestly say you wouldn't feel that in any way, then you're certianly a much better person than myself.

Ugly things happen in the world. Sometimes because of very sick people... sometimes by the best intentioned people. I lost 10 years of my my life because well-intentioned people didn't want to think of me as ill... 10 years of living hell... I do not blame them this is the nature of life. Now you ask me about my sister... if I don't not blame well meaning people for 10 years of pain I cannot describe to you, I am not goint to blame a sick person for an act beyond their understanding...



No, brutatilty is not the answer, but that doesn't mean that anyone who feels that way towards these offenderes is a bad person.

the lack of understanding by otherwise "educated and learned" individuals repels me. I have no name associated with my account here... I no longer associate my picture with my accounts on the net. It is too easy to end up restrained in an emergency room with the label "mentally ill".



You say they need treatment. Ideally yes. The problem is, none of the treatment seems to be working. Lets go back to the "what if it was your daughter" scenario. Now how do you feel when you find out that the guy who raped and murdered her had been arrested 2 or 3 times in the past for it?

I have no difficulty with a legal system that permanently removes them from society after after due process of law. However, witch-hunts and lynch-mob mentality frighten and disgust me. '



Like I said, I like this subject because there's no easy answer. But I did want to say how much I resent your demonization of nova.
And I wanted to say how ugly and callus I found such an off-handed remark. This is suppose to be a place of learned discussion not a place for hate and venom.

Trebuchet
2007-Aug-27, 07:13 PM
Several folks have mentioned keeping offenders locked up after they finish their sentences. This state (WA) has been doing that for quite a while, it's called "civil committment". The inmates are supposed to be getting treatment but in fact it's basically just an open-ended prison sentence. The facility is part of a state prison. Only a fraction of offenders get committed in this way, but there are some.

While I'm pretty sure that all or nearly all of those committed richly deserve it, I still find it somewhat troubling that an American citizen can be imprisoned after completing a sentence and committing no further crimes, just on the basis of what they might do. And there's a major catch-22 for anyone who might actually be innocent -- you can't get out unless you complete treatment, but you can't even start treatment unless you admit to the original crime. Last I heard most of the offenders had not received treatment because of this. (No, I don't really think they're innocent.)

Fazor
2007-Aug-27, 07:14 PM
Well, I *am* "stunningly handsome" with a "killer bod", so I guess it's a toss up. ;)

(BTW, the only one that would agree with that statement is my g/f, and she's biased).

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 07:19 PM
(snip) I am not goint to blame a sick person for an act beyond their understanding...
.

I repeat...
You are basing an assumption on your OWN history.
What makes you think these sex offenders suffer from something beyond their understanding?

korjik
2007-Aug-27, 07:47 PM
Yeah... isn't that the excuse anyone uses when the make such ugly comments... the statement looks pretty clear to me...

You don't just want to be barbaric with those who offend your civilized sensibilities... who they are... what they are... what might be the cause of their illness... would seem of little interest to you...

Well as someone who has a chronic mental illness that can be treated but never cured, I find the attitude offensive...

And as someone with a chronic mental illness, if you come after me or mine, I have no problem getting naked, painting myself blue, putting woad in my hair and coming after you with an axe.

Just as my illness is my problem, your illness is yours. I accept no responsability or risk because you are ill. If you become a threat to me, or my loved ones, I will have no problems reducing your carbon footprint to zero.

That is the genesis of the registry, the thought that pedophiles are extremely hard to defend against and that once someone shows that they are a threat to society, they should have their activities restricted. It is not a good solution, and I doubt anyone likes it, and it is abused when people who arent a threat are added to the list (which also waters down the list's effectiveness), but it is better, to some degree then what the solution was last century, or the century before.

I look at it this way. This country was founded on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you take that away from another, especially the most innocent, it no longer applies to you.

tofu
2007-Aug-27, 07:57 PM
Is there a reason the non-pedofile portion of the sex offender registry isn't being discussed?

I don't know, but that's the core issue.

Why isn't there a movement afoot to reform the registry so that only real pedos end up on it? The answer is political. If you dare to suggest that reform is needed, your political rivals will claim that you don't care about children.

Plus, the registry is useful to the government.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-27, 07:58 PM
Interesting picture there Korjik:neutral:

umm..
What is woad?

farmerjumperdon
2007-Aug-27, 08:01 PM
There may not be a perfect fix, that everyone will like and agree with. But there is a distinction that says, "Keep them away from the kids."

The only flaw that galls me is that they laws are ridiculous about such as what Tofu posted about a dumb mistake branding you for life.
A single mom can't pick up her kids from the school because once at Mardi Gras...

Exactly, and as someone posted, they can be amended, as Texas did (of all places?). If the rules are broke, fix them. No matter how it works now, there is a way to make it work correctly. And to me correctly means you do not dump predators with an incureable (for all practical purposes) desire to molest into neigborhoods with kids at all, much less without notice.

There is no idealized right or freedom from any conservative or liberal viewpoint that justifies doing so.

weatherc
2007-Aug-27, 08:17 PM
Yeah... isn't that the excuse anyone uses when the make such ugly comments... the statement looks pretty clear to me...

You don't just want to be barbaric with those who offend your civilized sensibilities... who they are... what they are... what might be the cause of their illness... would seem of little interest to you...

Well as someone who has a chronic mental illness that can be treated but never cured, I find the attitude offensive...And with that, you are now going onto my "Ignore" list.

If, in the future, I learn from others on this board that you can hold a rational conversation without insulting others, then I will take you off of that list. Until then, farewell.

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-27, 08:17 PM
And as someone with a chronic mental illness, if you come after me or mine, I have no problem getting naked, painting myself blue, putting woad in my hair and coming after you with an axe.

What's 'woad'??

Fazor
2007-Aug-27, 08:18 PM
Alright, gather 'round. It's time for another "Obscure References and Analogies by Fazor". In this episode I will attempt to compare sexual preditors with bengal tigers.

I understand the argument that at least some sexual preditors have an illness that is beyond their control. I also understand the feeling that it's unfair to treat these people cruely because of their illness--after all, they can't help it.

A bengal tiger is a preditor. It hunts for food, because that's what it is driven to do. But if there's a bengal tiger in my livingroom where my children are watching cartoons, I'm not going to say, "well, if it kills them it kills them; it's in the tiger's nature and it can't help it." I'm going to either remove the children from the situation, or remove the tiger from the situation.

Now I'm not a physically imposing presence, so if I am tasked with removing an adult tiger from my living room, I'd most likely resort to deadly force. Do I want to kill the tiger? No. But I'm not sure what other options I would have.

Do any of us want to kill someone with a mental illness they cannot control? No, I don't think so. But I think it's fair to say that many may feel they have no other option.

Thank you for tuning in to today's episode. Tomorrow we'll try to compair canned tuna and the apollo mission. Good'day!

farmerjumperdon
2007-Aug-27, 08:26 PM
Yeah... isn't that the excuse anyone uses when the make such ugly comments... the statement looks pretty clear to me...

You don't just want to be barbaric with those who offend your civilized sensibilities... who they are... what they are... what might be the cause of their illness... would seem of little interest to you...

Well as someone who has a chronic mental illness that can be treated but never cured, I find the attitude offensive...

I'm curious how you feel people with uncureable chronic mental illness who have demonstrated themselves to be a menace to society should be dealt with.

For the record, IMO a menace is a menace and needs to be addressed. The root cause may effect how we address it, but I don't see how anybody can justify dumping repeat offenders with an incureable desire to prey on others back into the community.

I certainly have sympathy for people with certain conditions; but that sympathy does not trump my desire to protect people from predation. And as I mentioned earlier, my concern for predators is not limited to sex crimes, or sex crimes against children, or crimes against children. All violent crime against people needs to be addressed far more seriously than it is today. Some combination of treatment, punishment, protection, or whatever it takes.

The system we have today is irrelevant to people like me who would not hurt others even if it were legal to do so; and it is not enough of a deterrent for people who think it is OK to prey on others. So who exactly is it helping?

farmerjumperdon
2007-Aug-27, 08:30 PM
Lurker, before you go name-calling and finger pointing, consider this. If you're five-year-old sister, or worse, 5 year old daughter, got raped and murdered, would you not feel any ill will or notion of violence towards the offender? If you can honestly say you wouldn't feel that in any way, then you're certianly a much better person than myself.

Not sure why that makes them a better person. By what formula are they better? Blind forgiveness of evil is not an asset in my book.

Fazor
2007-Aug-27, 08:35 PM
Not sure why that makes them a better person. By what formula are they better? Blind forgiveness of evil is not an asset in my book.
Well, I guess that all depends on your belief system or whatever. I guess "more restraintitive" (I can make up words too, Mr. President) person would be more fitting.

SeanF
2007-Aug-27, 08:41 PM
I'm going to come to Lurker's defense, here. Some of the comments seem to be implying that Lurker wants to protect these folks from being held responsible for their actions at all, and that's not the case. He specifically said:

I have no difficulty with a legal system that permanently removes them from society after after due process of law.

The comment that he originally took exception to:

...throw them in general population with all the lifers that have no hope of ever seeing the outside of he prison again and make then wear a pretty pink jumpsuit...either that, or a no rules, anything goes closed door meeting with the parents and relatives of the people they victimized...
Is something far beyond that.

Doodler
2007-Aug-27, 08:45 PM
Lurker, before you go name-calling and finger pointing, consider this. If you're five-year-old sister, or worse, 5 year old daughter, got raped and murdered, would you not feel any ill will or notion of violence towards the offender? If you can honestly say you wouldn't feel that in any way, then you're certianly a much better person than myself.

I'll take this one. My sister was assaulted at the age of 8. Kept like a mistress until she was 12 and turned him in in a fit of jealousy (note: no problem with the "abuse", she was jealous of my mother for going on a delayed honeymoon trip).

My personal feelings amount to this: Don't stick me in a position to judge this guy, my opinions on the matter aren't going to be anywhere this side of rational.

Law isn't about personal feelings, its about justice. Remember the old addage about justice being blind? That means IMPARTIAL, not turning a blind eye while you flay the skin off his back.

Fazor
2007-Aug-27, 09:04 PM
Law isn't about personal feelings, its about justice. Remember the old addage about justice being blind? That means IMPARTIAL, not turning a blind eye while you flay the skin off his back.
I agree 100%; I wasn't saying that Lurker was wrong, just that it's harsh to imply that nova et. al. are bad people for feeling that way. I can understand each side of it, but I don't think any of us are in any sort of position to judge the other based on their personal views. That was the whole point of the random tiger analogy; to try to explaine that side of the argument.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-28, 12:17 AM
Agreed with Doodler and Fazor.
SeanF, Lurker wasn't wrong but Novaderrick was talking about the "lizard part" of the brain. And I dont blame him either.

We as a society, I think, try too hard to be understanding and nice.

Any ol' shmoe can deliver a blame my parents sob story and get sympathy.
But personal responsibility MUST be held accountable.

Ted Bundy was sick. Mentally Ill.
Does that make it ok? Should we hug him and give him good drugs?

I understand he was sick. Put me in a room with him and lock the door for five minutes and I'm sure I could achieve whole new levels of understanding what his brain looks like.

These "sick" people took pleasure in what they did. They liked it. There is no treatment. They did not seek help. They did not fight it. They did it, acted on it, enjoyed it.

Doodler
2007-Aug-28, 12:20 AM
I won't say there aren't lines you can cross and not be deemed not worth it. You'll notice I wasn't very objectionable to the "two strikes and you're dead" concept. Even murderers cross a subjective body count line where live capture becomes somewhat optional.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-28, 12:37 AM
What's 'woad'??
:neutral:

Whirlpool
2007-Aug-28, 10:53 AM
Sexual Offenders are sexual offenders. Whatever is their nature, whether they are sick or not . They did violate the law and threatens families of the victims .

It's no excuse of what they did.

And there are others who are not really sick , its just they do it because they like it , they find pleasure in doing it , it doesnt necessarily say that they are sick with something with resemblance to Cleptomaniac.

And these are normal people .

One interview of a peadophile and an incester that I watched long time ago, he was asked why did he do it ? He just answered .. I'm H***y. This guy had maliciously raped his daughter which is pregnant at that time because of him.
It isn't a disease, he isn't sick.

I cannot tolerate such offenders for I have experienced it when my mom was almost raped by a sexual offender who happens to be our neighbor and whom I know personally.

I don't know what makes them do it , or what goes on in their mind. But what I can say is same as Fazor posted , I would choose to eliminate the threat to my family if there is a need to eliminate.

:neutral:

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-28, 01:34 PM
Originally Posted by Michael Noonan
even more entitled to the right
What country are you living in?

You ask a fair question and I gave an unfair answer. I am not above vengeful thoughts towards a predator of children. I would be dishonest if I said I welcomed them in my community. The best that I can do is want them to live elsewhere.

I stand by a child has a greater right. That may not be the principal of equality. You know I really struggle with this. I just believe it is unfair that an offender can choose where to live and a child can't.

If there is an answer in Australia, then I truly do not know what it is.

Doodler
2007-Aug-28, 01:41 PM
So some people are more equal than others? Orwell's spinning in his grave. The parents can choose where they raise their children, and their right is no greater than any other's.

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-28, 03:18 PM
So some people are more equal than others? Orwell's spinning in his grave. The parents can choose where they raise their children, and their right is no greater than any other's.

I believe freedom is a right it gives great privileges but only when the majority of society demand and abide by them. I don't have the answer and I wish I did. In fact I have probably a fairly extreme point of view when it comes to protecting children.

We have come a long way from 2000 years ago when a child had no value, that sounds harsh but then they were a liability and an expense. A slave had more value as they were measured by the work they performed.

In the 1800's Charles Dickens campaigned to free children from coal mines. I believe we still have a way to go.

I will set out exactly my thoughts on the worst offenders, not that this is to be societies position but so you can know my thoughts, right or wrong.

My belief is that thought is linked and that a lengthy sentence damages both the perpetrator and the victim. I would have the sentence for the perpetrator served in a coma like the Robin Cook book of the same name. That would ensure the thought could not be twisted over the years from guilty to a belief through self induced lies to a sense of innocence and unjustified persecution.

The person would serve time safe and loose only time as the mind in a coma is below function. That gives the community time to resolve hurt, hatred and progress through healing. The perpetrator comes out of coma knowing guilt and without thinking time to induce a lie to themselves. Rehabilitation starts at a medically chosen time required to prior to finishing sentence.

I don't propose this system because I know it would cause outrage. But I do think differently, very differently and I am very aware that I do not have the answer that will suit everybody, just an opinion.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-28, 04:52 PM
We have come a long way from 2000 years ago when a child had no value, that sounds harsh but then they were a liability and an expense. A slave had more value as they were measured by the work they performed.

Disagree slightly. Years ago, children were assets. Free labor and assurances of someone to care for you when you get old. Since they cost the property owner so little to acquire - they'd have 15 of them. Of course - they didn't last as long back then either - so they'd have a couple more just to be safe. Sons were particularly valuable since they could keep property in the family at their fathers passing. That, and they were expected to care for their parents when their parents were no longer able to care for themselves.

Today - people only talk of the cost of raising children and children have no legal or moral obligation to their parents once they reach the age of majority. Parents may never reep the benefits of the time and money they put into raising their children. In my opinion, this increased cost and decreased benefit is part of the reason people have only 2 children on average today.

korjik
2007-Aug-28, 05:58 PM
What's 'woad'??

oops, not woad in my hair, wash it with lime. Dunno what woad is, was just trying to remember the battle uniform of certain opponents of ancient Rome, since Lurker pulled the barbarian card.

weatherc
2007-Aug-28, 06:02 PM
oops, not woad in my hair, wash it with lime. Dunno what woad is, was just trying to remember the battle uniform of certain opponents of ancient Rome, since Lurker pulled the barbarian card.According to Wikipedia, and Dictionary.com, woad is used to make dye, so I guess you could make a face paint out of it.

korjik
2007-Aug-28, 06:05 PM
So some people are more equal than others? Orwell's spinning in his grave. The parents can choose where they raise their children, and their right is no greater than any other's.

Some people are more equal than others. Those who break the public trust, and prove that they are a threat to society, should be treated differently than those who dont.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-28, 08:14 PM
Yeah... and if there were a murderer's registration list or an armed robbery registration list, I wonder what we would find... There are all sorts in our society and, except for sex offenders, we don't keep tabs on them after their sentences have been served.

Exactly, and I think it's a gross injustice to single out just one type of criminal and smear his/her name all over the place.

Wonder which one will suffer the wrath of moms and dads by suing the cops for all they're worth?

Oh, and I just love the FAQs page. One of the questions was, "I was convicted of a sex crime in another state but that crime isn't on your law books. Do I still have to register?"

I wonder who would ever click on that one and how soon before the cops arrived?

Bottom line, I think it's an abuse of human dignity to continue to punish people by putting in a humilitating situation.

If you do the crime, do the time. But when the time is up, it's up and you shouldn't continue to be harrassed by society.

Fazor
2007-Aug-28, 08:21 PM
Bottom line, I think it's an abuse of human dignity to continue to punish people by putting in a humilitating situation.

If you do the crime, do the time. But when the time is up, it's up and you shouldn't continue to be harrassed by society.
Sounds nice, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that these laws came about because of a very particular problem. They didn't just one day say, "Those jerky sexual deviants! How can we humiliate them further?!". They came about because of the number of preditors being caught preditering (yeah I know I'm in my "make up words" mood this week) around schools and parks, etc., and because of the number of repeat offenders who were able to blend back into society and gain the communities trust, and then use that trust to get to their next victim.

I'm no fan of any hardline rule; as I mentioned earlier (and so did others), I don't think it's fair for the guy who's wife was mad at him so she claimed rape, or the 16 year old that slept with his underage girlfiend, to be labled as a preditor. But, I have no problem with labeling a preditor as a preditor. I don't have kids, but I have a girlfriend whom I care very much about. It makes me feel a bit safer that she knows the guy two streets over has been arrested twice for rape, and she knows what he looks like.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-28, 08:40 PM
Im going to jump in here and say that it's both.

Repetative predators are indeed a problem and registering them does indeed make us feel safer.

However, another motive these days is the new "in" thing about safety.

In the modern US, due to frivilous law suits and governement revenue, safety has become a big money maker. We are not intelligent enough to look after our own safety- so the government is going to do it for us.

I wonder how long it will be until skydiving, hanggliding and bungee jumping are illegal across the US.

Doodler
2007-Aug-28, 08:43 PM
Bottom line, I think it's an abuse of human dignity to continue to punish people by putting in a humilitating situation.

If you do the crime, do the time. But when the time is up, it's up and you shouldn't continue to be harrassed by society.
Sounds nice, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that these laws came about because of a very particular problem. They didn't just one day say, "Those jerky sexual deviants! How can we humiliate them further?!". They came about because of the number of preditors being caught preditering (yeah I know I'm in my "make up words" mood this week) around schools and parks, etc., and because of the number of repeat offenders who were able to blend back into society and gain the communities trust, and then use that trust to get to their next victim.

I'm no fan of any hardline rule; as I mentioned earlier (and so did others), I don't think it's fair for the guy who's wife was mad at him so she claimed rape, or the 16 year old that slept with his underage girlfiend, to be labled as a preditor. But, I have no problem with labeling a preditor as a preditor. I don't have kids, but I have a girlfriend whom I care very much about. It makes me feel a bit safer that she knows the guy two streets over has been arrested twice for rape, and she knows what he looks like.

What was that old quote about better 10,000 guilty go free than one innocent be punished?

Guess that no longer applies in the US, does it? Slap'em with a tag, just in case.

Utterly. Pathetic.

Fazor
2007-Aug-28, 08:53 PM
Is the other part of that, "Better to let 1,000 innocent children get raped and murdered than to lable one innocent person as a possible threat?"

I don't think it's so utterly pathetic. Besides, it's all public information anyway. If I had your name and city of residence, I could check to see what you've gone to court for. This system just makes it easier to do so.

**Edit: and no, i'm not saying this is the perfect system. But life is often about the lesser of two evils. Get over it.

weatherc
2007-Aug-28, 09:09 PM
Doodler, I think we may be thinking about different things here...

We're not talking about putting citizens on a sexual offenders registry that are arrested for or accused of a crime. This would be very wrong, and quite destructive to people's lives without any kind of due process.

We're talking about people that have already been convicted of said crime by a jury of their peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, with all evidence taken into account.

So, legally, they have already been deemed guilty of the crime by a jury of their peers and a judge. The jail sentence, as well as being put on the registry, are all part of the same punishment. As long as being put on the registry is part of the original sentence (not tacked on after the original sentencing hearing, as this would violate ex post facto rules, I think), then I don't see a moral, legal, or Constitutional issue with this.

Plus, if anyone is found with new evidence to be not guilty of the crime, they can be taken off the registry. While this person's life may be pretty screwed up by this point, this is also true of anyone who is falsely accused of a crime, whether they wind up on the registry or not. Heck, even someone arrested for any one of a number of crimes (sexual or not), then found not guilty by a jury, may still have their reputations wrecked by the experience. It's unfortunate, but it happens.

RalofTyr
2007-Aug-29, 05:30 AM
I love California. Where I can be branded a sexual predator just for taking a leak in public. Oh, the children we have to protect the children...and prosecute them as an adult, but never mind here.

There's were about twice as many sexual assaults when most of us were children, than today, so there's probably nothing really to worry about.

My thoughts are the reasons behind seach a registry. What purpose does it serve? So what if your neigbor has served time of an offense sexual in nature? Will that give you piece of mind? How are you going to protect your children? Run outside and grab your child becuase your pedo neighbor walked outside to collect the newspaper? These registries cause nothing but fear and to perhaps, drive sexual offenders to the fringes of society, which is probably the primary purpose, ostracism.

There are lots of people who when released from prison, repeat their offense. Sexual offenses are just taboo in our society.

For those declaring acts against people under 18 are worst and those who commit them are truely sick, then where do we draw the line? There are those that feel homosexuality is sick and should be a sexual offense. Perhaps we should lock homosexuals up until they are "Cured". Same goes for interracial marriages etc.

novaderrik
2007-Aug-29, 09:25 AM
thanks to all that have defended my right to be an ignorant redneck..
but, please, start spelling my name right..
i think that, as a society, we are too forgiving of the bad things people do. we like a good story of redemption, and look at everything from that perspective.
in the US, if you have a good lawyer and can garner some sympathy in the courtroom, you can murder 12 people in cold blood, get sentenced to 5 consecutive life terms in prison, and get out in 10 years if you just act nice while in prison. does that mean you are necessarily fit to return to society without being thought of as a threat? i'm gonna say "no". it just means you knew how to play the system. but that reptile part of your brain that likes killing people is still there.
if a guy is compelled to have sex with little girls or boys, is he suddenly going to feel compelled to stop just because he happened to get caught after doing it 100 times, and served 5 years in prison and got put on a list because of it? on this, i'm also gonna say "no". that reptile part of your brain that likes cute little kids is still there.
the laws men write do not always take precedence over the laws of nature. and they should not. as a species- and as a society- we strive to take the "undesirables" out of the equation to help ensure the future prosperity of the species.
i've always liked the "justice" that Jeffrey Dahmer got, and think that the worst sexual offenders should meet the same fate.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-29, 11:40 AM
There are those that feel homosexuality is sick and should be a sexual offense. Perhaps we should lock homosexuals up until they are "Cured". Same goes for interracial marriages etc.

You're really reaching here. Your last comments have nothing to do with any points that anyone has brought up.

As far as what would you do differently as a parent? We all had neighborhood friends growing up. We used to go to their houses for dinner or play or sleepovers. Some of those kids had indoor toys that we didn't have so we would have no problem going in their house to play with them. Our parents would see their parents out mowing the lawn or going for walks. They'd talk and get to know eachother. Really nice people. Our parents would have no problem with us playing inside the neighbors house with the neighbors kids.

Of course there was no sex offender registry and we had no idea how trustworthy the neighbors were. We just trusted because they seemed nice.

Now - with the sex offender registry - no matter how nice that neighbor who gives out the best treats at holloween seems - we know that the kids are never ever to go over there. It serves a purpose.

astromark
2007-Aug-29, 12:07 PM
I would think you are well educated people. Given that we all feel a repulsion to this sort of criminal but, there needs to be a reasoned approach to this very public naming and shaming of these people. The law has dealt to these deviates and even the heinous criminal can and does change. Care should be used as often the numbers are distorted to say whatever the small pressure group wants you to see.
This is a highly emotive subject and we should learn from our past... Who are we to impose our principals on others. The right and balanced decency of the young should be upper most in our thoughts. I agree with 'tofu'

Fazor
2007-Aug-29, 01:49 PM
I agree with 'tofu'. Ugh, but tofu doesn't agree with me :sick:. Oh, I thought that was just a random culinary statement. Nevermind. ;)

Anyway, like I said this is a very complex issue. I think it should be obvious that I'm not totally against laws such as Megan's Law requiring the registering and tracking of convicted offenders. But that doesn't mean I think it's the best solution.

It's safe to also say that doing nothing in the insterest of "protecting the convicted" is not something I'm in favor of either.

But I love seeing these conversations in a place like BAUT, because as Astromark said I regard (at least most of us ;)) as very inteligent people. It is important that issues like these be discussed and debated.

boppa
2007-Aug-29, 02:29 PM
an interesting debate....
I'm all for `sealed' lists being maintained by the police/government after a person has done their time- but imho these public lists actually work against the public good!!!

my reasoning for this viewpoint is as follows
Once a person has done their time/been punished their slate is now `clean'- ie they are now back to the persumption of innocent until proven guilty

these public lists reverse that presumtion that has been the basis of both the U.S.A and Australia(where I am) legal systems to guilty until proven innocent.

Also I personally think that once these public lists are used, any chance that they were actually rehabilitated whilst serving their sentence is quite quickly eroded by constant harrasement by `well meaning' public members that actively stalk people registered on the list.
Add to that often these people find it hard to even get a job, make new friends etc etc and soon the pressure could possibly build to the point where they retaliate- bringing on a self perpetuating cycle of `see they are dangerous so should be on the list', where being on the list was the cause of the retaliation in the first place!

so to reiterate I'm fully in favour of the lists being maintained- just not available to the general public.

CodeSlinger
2007-Aug-29, 02:45 PM
I think there are a few basic questions that need to be settled first. Some posters seem to view sexual deviancy as primarily a criminal act like theft, so they come to the conclusion that after someone does X number of years in prison the slate should be wiped clean. Others view it as primarily a mental illness, which some believe can be "cured" while others do not seem to share the same optimism. Obviously this will lead to other conclusions about how sexual deviants should be treated/punished. Without enough evidence to decide exactly what sexual deviancy is (crime/curable illness/incurable illness), it seems that any discussion on appropriate treatment/punishment will always have people starting from different premises, and therefore always talking past each other. Perhaps the reality is that sexual deviancy can be all 3, with different instances falling into different categories, so there is no one single solution that can fit all cases.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Aug-29, 02:45 PM
If you do the crime, do the time. But when the time is up, it's up and you shouldn't continue to be harrassed by society.

Then you will be happy to have them all move in as neighbors?

Committing a violent crime against fellow humans is not like keeping a library book out late, where you pay the fine and all is forgiven. For certain levels of crime, you can be, and should be, mark and identified for life. The evidence warrants it. I do not see where doing the time automatically earns complete forgiveness and gives a person a clean slate.

Freedom is not a natural right. Nature does not give rights, societies do. Freedom is given by fellow humans thru a social contract (including written laws) and can be taken away by fellow humans.

Fazor
2007-Aug-29, 02:46 PM
Once a person has done their time/been punished their slate is now `clean'- ie they are now back to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty
That's basically the main argument against the public lists Boppa. The thing is, the "innocent until proven guilty" is a court doctrine. There's no rule governing how I look at other people.

Say you see a homeless man on the street corner, and recall that 10 years ago he slaughtered the family down the street, but is now free on a technicality. Would you invite him into your home and show him where you keep the cooking knifes?

Assuming that someone who committed a criminal act might commit the act again is in the interest of self preservation. Might they have been "rehabilitated"? Sure. Might they be the same person they were to begin with? Yeah. Which one is worse for you if you are wrong?

If you'd rather put your safety and your families safety second, and put the "fairness" of someone else first, go right ahead. I however am not willing to do that.

Lastly, your argument is based on "rehabilitation". But there's good arguments on the side that many of these offenders cannot ever be rehabilitated.

Fazor
2007-Aug-29, 02:59 PM
Perhaps the reality is that sexual deviancy can be all 3, with different instances falling into different categories, so there is no one single solution that can fit all cases.
I think this is an important realization, and I would totally agree with having different categories of sex crimes, with inclusion on the registry list limited to only certian types of crimes/criminals.

The registration requirement could be something that is mandated on a case-by-case basis at sentencing, and doesn't have to be a "everything that's x type of crime" decision. If the judge and/or jury feel the type of deviance is a threat to others in the future, then add it to the sentencing.

The only real problem I see with this is liability. Judges may be afraid that if they don't mandate that an offender be on the list, and then the person re-offends, that they will come under fire for their first decision. That's the biggest obstical I see with this type of treatment, IMHO.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Aug-29, 03:25 PM
Once a person has done their time/been punished their slate is now `clean'- ie they are now back to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty
That's basically the main argument against the public lists Boppa. The thing is, the "innocent until proven guilty" is a court doctrine. There's no rule governing how I look at other people.

I think "innocent until proven guilty" gets used as a catch phrase more than as a statement of principle. Once proven guilty and once the sentence is served, the criminal is . . . . forever guilty of what they did. Their status does not change to not guilty after they serve the sentence. This is not meant to be a semantics game, but I think there is a distinction on the one hand between being presumed innocent as a status in court for a specific act for which charges have been brought, and on the other hand being presumed to not be predisposed to repeat the same crime for which guilt has already been established.

So yes, in the due process of investigating and prosecuting a specific crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. In the process of using common sense to provide a safe environment for decent humans, I will not pretend that a guilty party is not more likely to repeat - especially when the consequences of that pretense can be so severe.

boppa
2007-Aug-29, 03:32 PM
Once a person has done their time/been punished their slate is now `clean'- ie they are now back to the persumption of innocent until proven guilty
That's basically the main argument against the public lists Boppa. The thing is, the "innocent until proven guilty" is a court. There's no rule governing how I look at other people.

Say you see a homeless man on the street corner, and recall that 10 years ago he slaughtered the family down the street, but is now free on a technicality. Would you invite him into your home and show him where you keep the cooking knifes?

Assuming that someone who committed a criminal act might commit the act again is in the interest of self preservation. Might they have been "rehabilitated"? Sure. Might they be the same person they were to begin with? Yeah. Which one is worse for you if you are wrong?

If you'd rather put your safety and your families saftey second, and put the "fairness" of someone else first, go right ahead. I however am not willing to do that.

Lastly, your argument is based on "rehabilitation". But there's good arguments on the side that many of these offenders cannot ever be rehabilitated.
first its boPpa not boopa ;-)

I was at great pains to say that they would still be listed and `hopefully' monitored by the appropriate people ie the police
however I personally feel that the public `naming and shaming' done by these lists causes more problems than they solve
The almost complete social alienation may and probably would end up causing them to `snap' with further possibly quite dire concequences.

http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html makes for some interesting reading
from above

A survey of 135 sex offenders in Florida revealed that housing restrictions increased isolation, created financial and emotional stress, and led to decreased stability for sex offenders. Respondents also indicated that they did not perceive residence restrictions as helpful in risk management, and in fact, reported that such restrictions may inadvertently increase triggers for reoffense (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a).

re `But there's good arguments on the side that many of these offenders cannot ever be rehabilitated.'

statistically sophisticated studies with extremely large combined samples have found that contemporary cognitive-behavioral treatment does help to reduce rates of sexual reoffending by as much as 40% (Hanson, Gordon, Harris, Marques, Murphy, Quinsey, & Seto, 2002)


time for bed here btw, ill pop back in tomorrow

Fazor
2007-Aug-29, 04:30 PM
Yeah I saw I mistyped your handle, but it's fixed. sorry.


A survey of 135 sex offenders in Florida revealed that housing restrictions increased isolation, created financial and emotional stress, and led to decreased stability for sex offenders. Respondents also indicated that they did not perceive residence restrictions as helpful in risk management, and in fact, reported that such restrictions may inadvertently increase triggers for reoffense (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a).

Well, that's a survey, yes. But how much stock you want to put in the answers is up to you. They were basically asking the sex offenders if they like the punishment. How do you expect them to answer that question?


statistically sophisticated studies with extremely large combined samples have found that contemporary cognitive-behavioral treatment does help to reduce rates of sexual reoffending by as much as 40% (Hanson, Gordon, Harris, Marques, Murphy, Quinsey, & Seto, 2002)

So not even half of the reoffenders are stopped by these programs. That only helps strengthen my viewpoint. Additionally, you have to be carefull with these statistics. How many have not been caught reoffending? How many might not have yet, but will in the future?

What it comes down to is either you're going to be putting the (potential) victims at risk at the cost of privacy for the convicted, or you will be putting the saftey of the victim before the privacy of the convicted. I prefer the later.

As far as your idea that law enforcement instead of general public should monitor these offenders; again, that's fine and good in theory. Did you look at that list that Big Don posted in the OP of the offenders in his area alone? Do you really think police can even come close to monitoring these people enough to know that your children aren't arround them at any time? Police DO monitor these offenders. But there's only so much they can do, logistically. Should they be able to enter a convicted offender's house at any time to check and make sure there's no children or women being sexually assaulted? That's a much bigger invasion of privacy than Megan's Law.

There's a lot that needs to be taken into account.

boppa
2007-Aug-29, 11:50 PM
just popping in on my way to work...

some of the less desirable effects of Megans Law, has been where the offender is related to the victim, revealing the offenders name has `outed' the name of the victim, resulting in more suffering for the victims


In Virginia, these laws have had an impact on victims and the families of convicted

sex offenders. In one case, the wife and family (including the daughter who was also

the victim) were harassed when the registry went on the Internet and their address

was posted, even though the offender was sentenced to prison where he will remain

incarcerated for some time. Despite the offender being in prison, his family's

address was posted on the Internet as the address of a convicted sex offender (O'Brien, 1999)
edit to add source
www.appa-net.org/resources/pubs/docs/revisitingmegan.pdf

re the dropping of the reoffending rate is your contention that every single person on the list will reoffend? If not, what is the reoffending rate in the first place? (hint it was in a referenced link)

Considering that according to US Justice department figures it varies between 14 and 25%, a 40% reduction reduces that figure down to between 6% to 12% reoffending rate

That means between 88% up to 94% of people on the list- that do not reoffend- still receive the same stigmarta (and the same destruction of privacy and often property!)

Rather than be allowed to rebuild their lives and becoming contributing members of society again, these people are becoming the `lepers' of modern society- condemmed to wandering the streets calling out`unclean, unclean'
[hey aren't I allowed to use an emotional arguement just once like everyone else ;-)...instead of relying on referenced links and studies.]
[hmm I am on BAUT right? referenced links and studies are bad????] :-O

Fazor
2007-Aug-30, 01:51 AM
some of the less desirable effects of Megans Law, has been where the offender is related to the victim, revealing the offenders name has `outed' the name of the victim, resulting in more suffering for the victims
(rare nighttime post from home, you should feel special)

Well, these are the offenders that I would have no problem leaving off the registry. As I've stated throughout this thread, Megan's Law isn't perfect. But it certianly has utility if used correctly. This kinda ties in to the "Stupid Criminal Prosecution" thread, as I hate the hard-line no-exceptions nature of this law. Some common sense in who is a threat to the general public and who is not would be a good step. But don't do away with the registry alltogether.

RalofTyr
2007-Aug-30, 04:45 AM
What's funny about registries, is that they are voluntary. I personally know two people that should be registered that live in my area (Some of my friend's fathers who live in the area), that are not registered.



Now - with the sex offender registry - no matter how nice that neighbor who gives out the best treats at holloween seems - we know that the kids are never ever to go over there. It serves a purpose.

Yeah because a guy that urinated in public shouldn't be around children.

Doodler
2007-Aug-30, 12:42 PM
Freedom is not a natural right. Nature does not give rights, societies do. Freedom is given by fellow humans thru a social contract (including written laws) and can be taken away by fellow humans.

Dude, you just killed America, congratulations. You may now wipe your backside with the Constitution.

Did they not teach you about "inalienable rights" in civics?

RalofTyr
2007-Aug-30, 06:32 PM
Philosophically, Famerjumperdon has a point. We are not truely free. All societies, regardless of their government, does restrict certain freedoms and has its taboos, however, on the flip side, we are truely free because we can choose to leave that society. The 46 year old NAMBLA member can take his fourteen year old lover to the mountains and live isolated, if they choose to. However, there are consequences to actions, which are the results of freedom.

This is more just food for throught. Carry on.

Doodler
2007-Aug-30, 06:42 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20514201/

Ironically perfect timing for this story.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-30, 07:25 PM
Fromm Doodlers link:


Prosecutors reduced the charges from sex crimes that could have branded Rich a sex offender for life.

So it seems that the prosecuters understood he was a 17 year old idiot who was ticked and bitter over a break up.

30 days in the pokey.

Captain Kidd
2007-Aug-31, 01:57 AM
Hmm, Tennessee's list also features an interactive map. Kinda unnerving to see all those red dots.

I'm of split thought on the registry. The whole, "they've served their time, why punish them further" versus the, at least apparent, higher chance of a repeat offense. But I lean more toward for it than against it.

Edit: hmm we have a meth offender registry too it appears.

Doodler
2007-Aug-31, 12:06 PM
Hmm, Tennessee's list also features an interactive map. Kinda unnerving to see all those red dots.

I'm of split thought on the registry. The whole, "they've served their time, why punish them further" versus the, at least apparent, higher chance of a repeat offense. But I lean more toward for it than against it.

Edit: hmm we have a meth offender registry too it appears.

Heh, in a few more years, we'll probably be chipping ex-cons. WOn't that be fun? Push a button on your handy dandy GPS tracker and every ex-con in a one mile radius is located for your convenience.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Aug-31, 12:24 PM
Dude, you just killed America, congratulations. You may now wipe your backside with the Constitution.

Did they not teach you about "inalienable rights" in civics?

Constitution, social contract, one and the same. Humans construct rules by which they agree to live together. Whether they are acted out cultural norms or codified laws of the state, they do not emanate from nature. I'm not sure what inalienable rights means exactly, but in my book rights are given and taken away by society.

If inalienable rights means a right that can not be taken away; then I say such a thing does not exist. We take away rights all the time. We take away freedoms, heck we even take away life itself. If you break the rules the group has agreed to live by, then you can have your rights taken away - even those inalienable ones, even your right to live.

Fazor
2007-Aug-31, 01:37 PM
What you anti-registry'ers seem to be ignoring is the fact that we have said that yes, some discrimination should be used when deciding who constitutes as a registerable offender and who doesn't. I have yet to see any of us say, "No, the 16 year old charged with sex with a minor SHOULD be registered". We all agreed that this shouldn't be, so why do you keep using these as an example?

What you all seem to have a problem with is using someone's past history as a predictor of future behavior. You act like that's some horrid, anti-constitutional thing to do. But we do it all the time. Why do you think your insurance rates go up after you get a ticket or have an accident? Why do you think they use credit history when buying a car, house, cell phone, etc.? They don't check your employment history when you apply for a job just so they can laugh that you spent 10 years flipping burgers.

If you caught your best friend sleeping with your wife, would you really be okay with him continuing to visit her every afternoon while you're at work? Just because they cheated once, you should be fine with them haning out. After all, according to your rules you're inhuman if you hold that against him. They've learned their lesson, and should be assumed that they have changed.

I'm sorry, but you're anti-Megan's Laws rhetoric just strikes me as rediculously idealistic.

Doodler
2007-Aug-31, 01:39 PM
What you anti-registry'ers seem to be ignoring is the fact that we have said that yes, some discrimination should be used when deciding who constitutes as a registerable offender and who doesn't. I have yet to see any of us say, "No, the 16 year old charged with sex with a minor SHOULD be registered". We all agreed that this shouldn't be, so why do you keep using these as an example?


Because kids that young are going on the registry for exactly that. A few cases will find a DA willing to plea down the charges to avoid it, but they're becoming rarer as parents become more paranoid.

Fazor
2007-Aug-31, 03:29 PM
Because kids that young are going on the registry for exactly that. A few cases will find a DA willing to plea down the charges to avoid it, but they're becoming rarer as parents become more paranoid.

I know they are, and we've all agreed that that part of the system should be fixed. But just because there's a flaw... a particularly fixable flaw at that... that doesn't mean you should just junk the whole system.

weatherc
2007-Aug-31, 03:42 PM
Because kids that young are going on the registry for exactly that.Which I have serious problems with. I think even those of us arguing for the registry have problems with that scenario.

Ideally, I think the registry should only include offenders that have been found guilty of sexually abusing children from multiple households. Why? This will keep the people accused during a bad divorce of molesting the children from appearing on the list. This will keep first-time offenders off the list. This would only give information about those that can be established to be predators (that is, repeat offenders).

While the Constitution establishes that everyone starts out equal (hence the inalienable rights), our actions determine whether we get to keep those rights. The Constitution clearly states in the 5th Amendment that life, liberty, and property can be taken from a citizen, as long as due process of law is followed. If someone has been found guilty of sexually abusing children by a jury, and is then sentenced by a judge, and part of the punishment is that the convicted person is put on the registry, then this follows due process, and I fail to see how this is an abuse of the Constitution in any way, shape or form. In fact, if this were a Constitutional issue, it would have been knocked down by the Supreme Court before being enacted.

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-31, 04:00 PM
I know they are, and we've all agreed that that part of the system should be fixed. But just because there's a flaw... a particularly fixable flaw at that... that doesn't mean you should just junk the whole system.

I quite agree, a system is building on a foundation, it can be modified and corrected. I prefer organised freedom.

When a system is in place updates and corrections can be made. A good system takes into account 'degrees of freedom'.

Freedom for me is that everyone gets to start a race fairly. Those who choose to run the wrong way are disqualified, it is still freedom. Freedom does not mean everyone finishes at the same time otherwise freedom would not reward those who try harder. Freedom needs rules like the first to the finish line should not be allowed grab it to prevent everyone else from getting to the finishing line.

Freedom with the right fair guidelines is freedom and worth fighting for; freedom without guidelines is anarchy and is the price of apathy. If rights are fought for successfully then some animals do become more equal than others later in the race; meaning they are running on ahead. They were all equally equal in the beginning. Otherwise why promote freedom as a value system to 'aspire to'. Freedom is an incredible system to aspire to.

So convicted felons have the freedom to engage legal representation to ensure they are more equal than they would have been through paid representation. Communities paying taxes that don't demand legislation to ensure their safety and are unwilling to pay for that representation through apathy will have these ex-offenders in their community. They have the freedom to seek communities without these persons.

Freedom is far from free and interestingly due to majority apathy it favours those with the most to gain as well as those with the most to loose.