Registering Sex Offenders - What's the Point?

[Pedersen]

Of course you realize that the problem with this is that something being public record does not mean that people are going to be aware of it. For instance, of Nice Mr. Johnson moves in down the street, you may not think to look up his criminal record. If he is a registered sex offender, you are more likely to be notified of this than if you were just able to look up his records.

Okay, so the issue (from that statement) is that you would prefer others notify you as opposed to you taking responsibility for informing yourself. Fair enough.

Take it to the logical conclusion then: When moving, all people with any form of criminal record are now required to check in with local police and provide proper notification to their neighbors of their full criminal record. All of them. Not just one group. After all, we can find any number of people who are a serious danger to potential neighbors who do not have to provide any form notification.

Theft, assault, battery, arson, vandalism, murder, DUI, DWI, etc. Those are off the top of my head. Lots of them occur. Many of them have people get out of prison with no requirement that their new neighbors ever be informed of a single thing about their past. Make a criminal offenders registry. Or get rid of the sex offenders registry.

I know what you are thinking....what about burglars? Well, people tend to be a lot more skittish about protecting their kids than their house.

And you've just proven my single biggest point with your choice of words there, Jester: The sex offenders registry covers a lot more crimes than just child molestation. Raping an adult will get you there, as will indecent exposure, as will having sex with someone who swears she's 18 but is actually underage, an underage girl sends nuds pics of herself to her boyfriend and gets charged with manufacturing and distributing child porn, etc. But people don't think of those crimes. They think that if you are on the sex offender registry, you're a pedophile.

There's a reason that many tech sites label the phrase "but think of the children" as the root password for the Constitution. As a society, we will allow any of our liberties to be taken away when someone uses that phrase. Wait, that's wrong: We line up to give them up when somebody uses that phrase. It's truly sad.

What opposite does this prove?

I re-read your post, and found out that I misread what you had said. Where everybody else was discussing the fact that the general criminal population has a higher recidivism rate than sex offenders in general or even child molesters in particular, you changed the argument to become "The recidivism rate for these types of criminals is still unacceptably high, and therefore I'm in favor of this registry."

I apologize for my misreading.

I still disagree as to the utility and method of the registry. I've already documented my reasons why.

[crazylegs]

Sadly, that is not as true as you would like to believe. There have been documented cases of people being classified by the legal system as sexual offenders who must register for doing some of the silly "crimes" we have talked about in this thread.

Not in the UK there aren't, hence the comment about "our" system.

[Jester]

Okay, so the issue (from that statement) is that you would prefer others notify you as opposed to you taking responsibility for informing yourself.

Not quite. I would like the notification system to be in place, as it is very difficult to check up on each and every one of the people who may move in to my area. I don't really think this is asking that much, to be honest.

Take it to the logical conclusion then: When moving, all people with any form of criminal record are now required to check in with local police and provide proper notification to their neighbors of their full criminal record. All of them. Not just one group. After all, we can find any number of people who are a serious danger to potential neighbors who do not have to provide any form notification.

Theft, assault, battery, arson, vandalism, murder, DUI, DWI, etc. Those are off the top of my head. Lots of them occur. Many of them have people get out of prison with no requirement that their new neighbors ever be informed of a single thing about their past. Make a criminal offenders registry. Or get rid of the sex offenders registry.

Frankly, I would advocate that the registry be changed to a criminal registry of any one that has been convicted of any dangerous crimes, while eliminating the silly crimes that have been discussed here. Murderers, rapists, arsonists, child molestors, burglars...basically people who have proven themselves to be a danger to their fellow citizen and, statistically, are not likely to change their ways. I have no issue with this. Remember, even when a felon is released from prison, they still do not have all their civil rights automatically restored. Without petitioning the court successfully, they cannot vote, among other things. (I don't know precisely which rights they lose beyond this one.) This is part of the price of being a criminal asshole.

And you've just proven my single biggest point with your choice of words there, Jester: The sex offenders registry covers a lot more crimes than just child molestation. Raping an adult will get you there, as will indecent exposure, as will having sex with someone who swears she's 18 but is actually underage, an underage girl sends nuds pics of herself to her boyfriend and gets charged with manufacturing and distributing child porn, etc. But people don't think of those crimes. They think that if you are on the sex offender registry, you're a pedophile.

I have said repeatedly that there are a lot of crimes that will land you on the sex offender registry that shouldn't. I have also repeatedly advocated changing that. Of the crimes you've listed above, the only one I think should land you on said registry is rape. Child rape, adult rape, I don't give two shits. Rapists are dangerous and despicable, and I have no problem with their neighbors knowing what they have done.

There's a reason that many tech sites label the phrase "but think of the children" as the root password for the Constitution. As a society, we will allow any of our liberties to be taken away when someone uses that phrase. Wait, that's wrong: We line up to give them up when somebody uses that phrase. It's truly sad.

This may surprise you (maybe even shock you), but I agree with you. I am very much a fan of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and have been disturbed by the number of rights Americans as a group have been willing to give up both in the face of the "terrorist threat" and when we "think of the children." Too much has been done in the name of "the children." To quote one of my lifelong heroes George Carlin, "FUCK the children." Entirely too much of the Constitution has been raped and pillaged in the name of the fucking children.

This does not, however, change my stance on the registry. When these dangerous people committed their dangerous crimes, they forfeited many of the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as is clearly defined in our criminal justice system.

What I am referring to above is the attack on music made by the PMRC in the 80's, the attack on adults' rights in the name of "protecting the children" in general, and other such idiocy. There is a huge difference between using children as an excuse to be Puritanical censors and controlling what music I can listen to and protecting children from people who present a real danger, such pedophiles and rapists.

I re-read your post, and found out that I misread what you had said. Where everybody else was discussing the fact that the general criminal population has a higher recidivism rate than sex offenders in general or even child molesters in particular, you changed the argument to become "The recidivism rate for these types of criminals is still unacceptably high, and therefore I'm in favor of this registry."

I never changed MY argument, as that was my argument from the beginning.

I still disagree as to the utility and method of the registry. I've already documented my reasons why.

And I have documented my disagreements with the registry, I thought quite clearly. I believe it should be there, but I believe it should be drastically changed.

Not in the UK there aren't, hence the comment about "our" system.

Being completely unfamiliar with the British system, I cannot and will not comment on it. I am obviously unqualified to do so.

[protege]

This does not, however, change my stance on the registry. When these dangerous people committed their dangerous crimes, they forfeited many of the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as is clearly defined in our criminal justice system.

I too have no problem putting rapists and child molesters on the list. Society has a right to be notified about those assholes. Don't want the consequences? Then don't commit the act in the first place! Sorry, but once you've committed the crime, you deserve to have your rights trampled. You've already proven that you can't be trusted to live in free society. No sympathy from me, in other words.

[Jester]

I too have no problem putting rapists and child molesters on the list. Society has a right to be notified about those assholes. Don't want the consequences? Then don't commit the act in the first place! Sorry, but once you've committed the crime, you deserve to have your rights trampled. You've already proven that you can't be trusted to live in free society. No sympathy from me, in other words.

I am going to slightly disagree with you on two points.

1. I do not think all rapists should be there. Before people freak out, allow me to explain. While I think rape is an absolute travesty, there are people who are convicted of rape who may not be rapists. For example, the oft-cited guy with the slightly younger (as in below 18) girlfriend who has been convicted of statutory rape. Is he a danger? No. Also, in some date rape cases, the person being accused (and sometimes convicted) of rape may be getting railroaded by a vindictive woman. Yeah, I know. Everyone's innocent. But you know what I mean. I think that in cases where there are gray areas, these people should not be on the registry. Such things should be determined on a case by case basis (only in the gray cases) by a judge independent of the original case. Serial rapists, on the other hand--straight to the registry for you, turd boy.

2. I do not believe that even these scumsuckers should have their rights "trampled." Our justice system allows for certain rights of convicted felons to be curtailed, and I am fine with that. Should we suspend the Constitutional rights from these people? No. That is not a society I want to live in. They are still citizens and, however unpleasant we may find it, they still deserve their rights, albeit some of those rights may be limited in some respects, as I said. I don't have any sympathy for these people, but as an American and a Constitutional geek, I cannot in good conscience agree with the trampling of anyone's rights, even scumbags. Another point on this is, where do you draw the line of whose rights get trampled? And who decides? The current setup is hardly ideal, but for the moment, I can live with it.

I hope the above all makes sense.

[Gravekeeper]

Ah, crap. I shouldn't even have read the thread. Because the Sex Offender's Registry, especially lately with them slapping kids sexting and what not on it, is something that just aggravates me whenever I hear about it.

Its just fundamentally ridiculous that you can shoot someone in the face, do your time and get out and live a normal life because no one will know about your past unless you tell them. But stick your wiener in someone ( or something for the more enterprising in society ), do your time and get out and be harassed for the rest of your life, possible murdered yourself? Wtf.

The whole misguided idea of it was that there was a list of Very Bad People that the average person should be aware of due to their risk to reoffend. But this only applies to sex offenders and has no grey area in the minds of the average citizen. No matter what you did to get on that list, even if it was by accident ( Whizzing near a school ) the automatic label is "omfg slathering child rapist that will snatch any kid left unattended for more than 20 seconds within 40 miles of their house" and they're treated as such by society.

There isn't much else I can say that hasn't been covered in the thread. So I'll just say two things:

1) If someone is a high risk to re-offend. DON'T LET THEM THE FUCK OUT. If they can't get help, do rehab programs and prove they aren't going to rape, stab or shoot the first man, woman, child or goat they see when they get out the door. Than keep them the fark in there, please.

2) This "For the children" bullshit has got to stop as does the US's extreme "The War on X" approach to everything. The statistics just don't back up this whole media induced fear that "every single thing with testicles outside wants to rape your children" we get plastered for 6 months every time a cute white girl goes missing. ( The media seems to love that in particular. Cute white girls. Ugh. )

There shouldn't be a separate category just for sex offenders. It should just be a violent crimes registry with special credence given to the risk of reoffence. Honestly, I'd be a *bit* more interested to know my new neighbour once randomly shot someone in the face because he has anger management issues and someone asked him for directions than that he had raped someone.

[Boozy]

Honestly, I'd be a *bit* more interested to know my new neighbour once randomly shot someone in the face because he has anger management issues and someone asked him for directions than that he had raped someone.

That's because you're not a woman.

However, I think your other points are valid.

[AdminAssistant]

That's because you're not a woman.

Quoted for truth. I repeat my previous statement - you violently rape somebody, adult or child - bye, bye, balls!!!

[Greenday]

Quoted for truth. I repeat my previous statement - you violently rape somebody, adult or child - bye, bye, balls!!!

And that would do...what exactly?

[Jester]

Green, I agree with you on the sexting idiocy. I agree that the registry has too many "offenders" on it that should never have been labeled as sex offenders to begin with. I also agree that perhaps we should have a registry for the dangerous violent offenders in general (serial rape, child molestation, murder, serial DUI, serial assault, etc.). But there should be a PATTERN established (Dick Cheney shot someone in the face, but, while we can argue about him being dangerous in other ways, he is not a violent man prone to doing such things repeatedly). Well, a pattern or a crime serious enough to warrant one strike and on the registry you go (premeditated murder, violent rape, pedophilia).

As for the castration, while that is not going to get legalized any time soon in this country, HOW it would help is that rape, while not sexual, is driven by hormones and sexual urges (though ultimately, of course, it is about power and control). Castrated men are less violent and less aggressive. Period.

As for not letting people out....if they didn't receive a X year to life sentence, how can you keep them in, legally, once their time is served? Seriously?

[AdminAssistant]

And that would do...what exactly?

It might be a better deterrent than a 5 year jail sentence. But hey, if somebody comes after me, and I have access to a knife or any other weapon, I won't have to wait for any legal system.

The fact that everyone gets up in arms over child molestors and not over rapists in general is a bit irritating. There have been lots of rumors of rapes and assaults on campus and around town with female college students as the target. The campus police don't say anything..in fact, I hardly see them around. Hm.

[Jester]

The fact that everyone gets up in arms over child molestors and not over rapists in general is a bit irritating.

I think the reasoning behind that is that children don't have the physical strength of experience to defend themselves adequately from their predators.

Obviously, not all women succeed in defending themselves, and I am not blaming them for this....I am just saying that OVERALL, adult women are better equipped to defend themselves from a rape (which is usually a straightforward physical attack) than children are from molestation (which usually starts in a subtle way, leading to manipulation and finally assault).

I am not defending this thinking, mind you. I am as anti-rapist as I am anti-pedophle. I am merely trying to explain the logic behind it, as it were.

[Gravekeeper]

That's because you're not a woman.

However, I think your other points are valid.

Even if I was a woman, I'll take keeping my life over my vagina, thank you. In the mean time, I'll take keeping my life over my anus.

[Greenday]

It might be a better deterrent than a 5 year jail sentence. But hey, if somebody comes after me, and I have access to a knife or any other weapon, I won't have to wait for any legal system.

As I recall from various readings (can't find a .gov site on my first go and I'm kinda drunk right now so I'm not continuing the search), sterilization as a punishment doesn't deter anyone and doesn't have any effect on the rate of repeating sexual crimes. Doesn't take a penis to sexually assault someone. A hand will do just fine for such a crime. And that's exactly what's happening. Criminals who were sterilized still found ways to sexually assault people if they wanted to recommit crimes.

[Dreamstalker]

This "For the children" bullshit has got to stop as does the US's extreme "The War on X" approach to everything.

HELL yes. To speak in general terms on that, I'm damn sick of hearing what adults can and can't do (violent video games, the legal sort of porn, etc) because "zomg it could maybe possibly harm children!" For those adults who have no children and are not around them, the argument falls flat. I would think that adults who partake in said "vices" who are around kids at times know how to make it so the kids aren't exposed to XYZ.

As for the castration, while that is not going to get legalized any time soon in this country, HOW it would help is that rape, while not sexual, is driven by hormones and sexual urges (though ultimately, of course, it is about power and control). Castrated men are less violent and less aggressive. Period.

I thought that chemical castration was in use in the US. I could be wrong though...