Shooting of two registered sex offenders

[Gabrielle]

I read this article in today's newspaper. The way I see it, it doesn't make any difference who's photo is posted on the web. Everyone is subject to being the target of an attack whether they're a sex offender or not. Protecting our children is the most important thing no matter what the cost. I'm sure this isn't the first time that this has happened although I haven't heard about it.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Shooter viewed sex-offender site

By DAVID HENCH
Blethen Maine Newspapers

HOULTON -- The man suspected of shooting to death two registered sex offenders before killing himself had looked up 34 people listed on Maine's Sex Offender Registry, according to the State Bureau of Identification. However, investigators and the 20-year-old's father say they still don't know what motivated Stephen A. Marshall to launch the attacks early Sunday.

"I was just devastated. I cried all day," said Ralph Marshall, whose son shot himself as police in Boston boarded the Vermont Transit bus he had ridden south from Bangor. "There's a lot of speculation right now, but nobody knows for sure."

Stephen Marshall shot himself with the same .45-caliber handgun he used to kill Joseph L. Gray, 57, of Milo and William Elliott, 24, of Corinth on Sunday morning, police said. The previous evening, he stole three guns and a pickup truck from his father, according to authorities.

Marshall had no criminal record in Maine or in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, where he'd been working as a restaurant dishwasher, authorities said. Police hope that Marshall's laptop computer, recovered from the bus, will help explain what led the Canadian to target the two men in Maine.

Police have contacted all the other people who Marshall researched online, and none was injured or had contact with him, police said.

"At this point we have no indication of why he targeted those two individuals other than they were both convicted sex offenders listed in the registry," said State Police Lt. Jackie Theriault, head of detectives in northern Maine. "We may never know."

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news/local/2648463.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/04/18/sex_crime_disclosure_questioned/

 

[luckycharms]

Believe it or not, even creepy evil sex offenders have civil rights, or at least a right not to be hunted down and killed. In the name of public safety, you can justify all kinds of "reasonable" intrusions on people's civil liberties.

Ever got a speeding ticket? I want to require you to paint your car bright orange so I can stay clear of your car and protect my children.

When did they stop teaching "The Scarlet Letter" in high school?

 

[Gabrielle]

There was another article in the Kennebec Journal with the headline, Attacks on sex offenders fuels debate about registry. The online edition of the Kennebec Journal didn't include the article but there is a link for the story in the Portland Press Herald. The editor used a headline of Killings kindle vigilante debate. It's interesting how editors choose different titles for the same story.

Registered sex offenders have been attacked in several states in recent years.

In Bellingham, Wash., police reviewed their Internet sex registry after a man used it to get two sex offenders' names and address, entered the home they shared posing as an FBI agent, and fatally shot them last year. After the review, police stopped listing exact addresses; they now list the block the offenders live on.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060419shooting.shtml

 

[Curious3141]

I think it's OK to have a registry that's only accessible to law enforcement (and only if there's a "need to know"). Public domain registries, flyers to neighbors etc. are just *too damned much persecution*.

It's sobering when one realizes that in the US, one can become a "registered sex offender" for being caught peeing in public after having a pint too much.

EITHER only the most serious offences should qualify for the public registry (forcible rape, molestation of a very underaged individual etc. while removing obviously mild stuff like public urination and non-confrontational flashing/exhibitionism/voyeurism) OR the entire registry should be made secret and for police/FBI use alone. The way it is now just screams "witchhunt".

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

We had witch hunts(more like mobs protesting) In our area after a national newspaper published the names and addresses of sex offenders, I seem to remember they smashed up a house were a sex offender used to live and a paediatrician was attacked outside his work place(no one said these people were particularly bright) I really can't see the need for this sort of thing at all, this sort of information should be available from your local council for a fee, but it shouldn't be a matter of public record.

 

[Dawguard]

I really can't see the need for this sort of thing at all, this sort of information should be available from your local council for a fee, but it shouldn't be a matter of public record.

The proper deterant for this sort of thing would be to throw the people in jail. If you destroyed private property then you should be punished to the full extent of the law. Also, in this case, if you murdered people then you should be sent to jail for life. That would certanly be far more effective and just, rather then just hiding the sex offender list. There is a very good reason to have it free, public information. There is a high percentage of offenders who, even after years, repeat the crime. It is something I would want to be aware of if I was moving into a community.
Personally, I think the best way to stop sex offenders being attacked is keep them in jail. Of course, that's because I think sexual crimes should have mandatory life or capital punishment, so I admit that the solution isn't with bias.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think it's OK to have a registry that's only accessible to law enforcement (and only if there's a "need to know"). Public domain registries, flyers to neighbors etc. are just *too damned much persecution*.

It's sobering when one realizes that in the US, one can become a "registered sex offender" for being caught peeing in public after having a pint too much.

EITHER only the most serious offences should qualify for the public registry (forcible rape, molestation of a very underaged individual etc. while removing obviously mild stuff like public urination and non-confrontational flashing/exhibitionism/voyeurism) OR the entire registry should be made secret and for police/FBI use alone. The way it is now just screams "witchhunt".

I'm trying to find specifics but so far as I have read it seems that only the more severe of registered sex offenders are placed in the public registry. The list of those that are eligible to have their file removed from the public registry seems pretty bad itself.

I really can't see the need for this sort of thing at all, this sort of information should be available from your local council for a fee, but it shouldn't be a matter of public record.

Available for a fee upon request? So a parent should be able to use their telepathic powers to know that a sexual preditor has entered their neighborhood and then go to the city council to request further information so they can protect their children FOR A FEE?!
Tell me, if you were on that city council and the parents of a victim of a sexual preditor you allowed to live in your city asked you why you did not let them know there was a child molester living next door to them what would you tell them?
Would you tell them that you were protecting him? That it was more important to you to protect a child molester than to protect their daughter who wound up being molested by the man?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"Police hope that Marshall's laptop computer, recovered from the bus, will help explain what led the Canadian to target the two men in Maine."

I think I know why...

# of gun homicides in 1998 for Canada and US:
* 151 people in Canada
* 11,789 people in the United States

They come over here and murder people. Those jerks! Then again, those 151 deaths in Cadana were probably from American tourists.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think this is definitely walking a thin-line. The best thing i can think of is notifications mailed to people when a sex-offender is going to move into a neighborhood, but not 100% public information. You should also be able to freely request information about sex-offenders in a specific area but you have to give a verifiable (as best as can be done) name and identity to who you are so that if these people do happen to get killed, they'll know who pulled up their records and they'll be investigated on the off chance they did do what these people do.

I think in the end, this is the sort of thing we will HAVE to live with. We have to weight our decision here. The possibility of someone getting a list of sex offenders and murdering them vs. the possibility of sex offenders getting into neighborhoods undetected by the neighborhood. I believe the later is more important.

As someone noted (although i'd like confirmation that this is even the case), peeing in public is considered a sex offense so i would think some reform measures need to be taken to insure people on this list do pose realistic threats against people. Then again that sure is opening a can of worms as to what's realistic and what's not.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As someone noted (although i'd like confirmation that this is even the case), peeing in public is considered a sex offense so i would think some reform measures need to be taken to insure people on this list do pose realistic threats against people. Then again that sure is opening a can of worms as to what's realistic and what's not.

I'm trying to find more on this. Wiki says that 25% of registered sex offenders aren't on the public list. The CA Megan's Law site shows a series of crimes that can get you on the general list, the least of which being Lewd Conduct. The story I'm reading right now states that general Lewd Conduct charges which include public nudity and public urination require three convictions to get on the list and ofcourse that doesn't even mean that you will land on the public list.

 

[Curious3141]

I don't think notifying the neighbors that a sex offender "may" be moving in is appropriate or necessary. If the guy has done his time, he's supposed to be rehabilitated right ? Why paint him with a big scarlet letter wherever he goes ?

What about murderers ? Don't the neighbors have a "right" to know about them too ? What about people who've previously DUI-ed, that sure makes the neighborhood unsafe with drunks driving around ?!

This is the thin end of the wedge. Have a classified database that can only be opened by concerned law enforcement personnel who have a need to know to solve a current, open case. The public has no legitimate "right" to be told these things. There should be an absolute right to privacy.

As to those people wringing their hands and asking "but how can we keep our kids safe ?", I have to say you are pretty dumb. You should have measures already in place that minimise the chance of a predator coming for your children regardless of whether or not you "know" someone in the neighborhood has a predilection for this sort of thing. Intrusive privacy violations are no substitute for universal preventive measures and simple common sense parenting.

This is like a doctor or a nurse saying "but how can I prevent myself from getting HIV/Hep C from a patient if I don't know his/her status ?" That's why they have "Standard Precautions" to be applied uniformly to all patients.

In any case, the potential predators you don't know about (and believe me, there are plenty out there) are more dangerous than the past ones you do know about.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't think notifying the neighbors that a sex offender "may" be moving in is appropriate or necessary. If the guy has done his time, he's supposed to be rehabilitated right ? Why paint him with a big scarlet letter wherever he goes ?

Most murderers are people who have done so because they were robbing a liquer store or some such thing. The murders who kill people simply because they like to kill people generally get life sentences and are never released back into the public. That isn't the case with sexual predators. So a neighborhood may have a guy living there who once killed someone and they likely won't have to worry about this person kidnapping their children. You can't exactly say the same thing about a neighborhood where a man lives that has a sexual appetite for little boys.

As to those people wringing their hands and asking "but how can we keep our kids safe ?", I have to say you are pretty dumb. You should have measures already in place that minimise the chance of a predator coming for your children regardless of whether or not you "know" someone in the neighborhood has a predilection for this sort of thing. Intrusive privacy violations are no substitute for universal preventive measures and simple common sense parenting.

Someone I know just had their two year old daughter ****ed to death by a man she had known for ten years. Please explain to me how one knows through common sense who is and who is not a pedophile? Should parents just be paranoid that all men no matter who they are may potentially try to molest their children? The most common person to molest a child is one that the child and the parents trust.

In any case, the potential predators you don't know about (and believe me, there are plenty out there) are more dangerous than the past ones you do know about.

Exactly, and without the registry no one knows now do they?

 

[Cyrus]

As bad as it may sound, no one has any right to publically outcast a member of society for a past criminal episode. The guy went to jail, and did his time. No one has a right to resentence him after he already served his time.

 

[Pengwuino]

As bad as it may sound, no one has any right to publically outcast a member of society for a past criminal episode. The guy went to jail, and did his time. No one has a right to resentence him after he already served his time.

The problem is that being put on a sex-offenders list IS part of your punishment. I agree with you when they are put on the list after they were sentenced and the sentence didnt include the list but if the sentence is made to include being put on that last, it is part of your punishment. We need to remember that the #1 priority of a government is to protect its citizens. Wow my keyboard is acting weird right now...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As bad as it may sound, no one has any right to publically outcast a member of society for a past criminal episode. The guy went to jail, and did his time. No one has a right to resentence him after he already served his time.

Such criminals are public outcasts. That's why people who commit heinous crimes are usually sentenced to life in prison. They are not fit to be part of the general population and I think that the pedophiles that commit terrible crimes against children should not be released back into society. I do not however condone someone taking the law into their own hands and killing people even though there is at least one person whom I would be happy to hear one day was anally raped until he died of hemorrhaging and internal bleeding.

 

[Moonbear]

Most murderers are people who have done so because they were robbing a liquer store or some such thing. The murders who kill people simply because they like to kill people generally get life sentences and are never released back into the public. That isn't the case with sexual predators. So a neighborhood may have a guy living there who once killed someone and they likely won't have to worry about this person kidnapping their children. You can't exactly say the same thing about a neighborhood where a man lives that has a sexual appetite for little boys.

My view on this is that if they still pose such a great risk to society (which, in some cases, they do), then a registry is not the solution, but rather tougher penalties and longer prison sentences. If someone is deemed unable to be rehabilitated, then just like a cold-blooded murderer, give them a life sentence, in a mental institution if warranted, don't leave it up to the neighbors to take on the task of punishing them.

Please explain to me how one knows through common sense who is and who is not a pedophile? Should parents just be paranoid that all men no matter who they are may potentially try to molest their children? The most common person to molest a child is one that the child and the parents trust.

You don't know, and having a registry to give you a false sense of security that you do is dangerous in and of itself. Do you trust more the stranger down the street who is not on the list just because they aren't on the list, even if it's only because they haven't been caught yet? As for your middle question about being paranoid, I'd say, no, they should be cautious about EVERYONE, man or woman. You don't have to be paranoid to be cautious. What good does the registry really do? Do you suddenly start leaving your children with random neighbors unsupervised just because they aren't on the list? If you're looking to hire someone as a babysitter, you don't need a registry to be able to do a criminal background check on them.

Exactly, and without the registry no one knows now do they?

And with the registry, you still don't know.

 

[Pengwuino]

Whoa whoa whoa, what's with this strawman argument of "Well since we can't really know everything, we might as well know nothing"? Where is the logic in this??

 

[Cyrus]

The problem is that being put on a sex-offenders list IS part of your punishment.

And that, IMO, is excessive punishment, as it is a sentence that has an infinite term to it. It is, in effect, a life sentence to public humilation.

We need to remember that the #1 priority of a government is to protect its citizens.

Yes, including those who go through the criminal justice system.

That's why people who commit heinous crimes are usually sentenced to life in prison. They are not fit to be part of the general population and I think that the pedophiles that commit terrible crimes against children should not be released back into society.

Then you need to change the severity of the punishment to fit the crime. A more severe punishment is acceptable, an excessive punishment is not. It's subtle, but the difference is there. You clearly fall under the criminalogical view point that the punishment must be so sever as to deter the crime from happening. (In effect, deterrence theory.)

 

[Moonbear]

Whoa whoa whoa, what's with this strawman argument of "Well since we can't really know everything, we might as well know nothing"? Where is the logic in this??

It's not a strawman argument, it's an argument that it lulls people into a false sense of security thinking they do know everything.

I still think it's a violation of civil rights to brand someone for life if they've already served their time and been deemed fit to return to society.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well when you're talking about a crime that probably scarred a young child or young woman for life... isn't a life sentence to public humiliation a bit fitting? Maybe even leniant?

 

[Pengwuino]

It's not a strawman argument, it's an argument that it lulls people into a false sense of security thinking they do know everything.

That's a strawman. The idea of no list makes people think they have a false sense of security. Think of how people's minds work in these situations. If you move into a neighborhood and have no idea a sex offender lives there, it is far more likely that they will think the danger doesn't exist. That's just how people think! The list at the very least makes them realize the problem exists. This makes it a complete strawman, you can't say people are smart enough to realize the danger exists if the list doesn't exist yet say they are too stupid to realize just because a list exists doesn't mean there is no danger.

I still think it's a violation of civil rights to brand someone for life if they've already served their time and been deemed fit to return to society.

I personally believe no violation exists if the punishment of being on the list is handed down during proceedings. If it's done after hte fact, then i do believe it is a violation of civil rights.

 

[Moonbear]

Well when you're talking about a crime that probably scarred a young child or young woman for life... isn't a life sentence to public humiliation a bit fitting? Maybe even leniant?

Ever heard of the term "cruel and unusual punishment?" Especially considering that most people who commit these crimes are expressing a mental illness rather than a conscious decision to break the law, no, a life of public humiliation does not seem fitting.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ever heard of the term "cruel and unusual punishment?" Especially considering that most people who commit these crimes are expressing a mental illness rather than a conscious decision to break the law, no, a life of public humiliation does not seem fitting.

Cruel and unusual? This is not cruel or unusual, it's protecting society. Is the victim ever considered? Did they not go through a very cruel experience themselves?

 

[Cyrus]

This is not cruel or unusual, it's protecting society.

Protecting society at the cost of civil liberties, hmmm that's a dangerous game your playing there pengwunio...

 

[Pengwuino]

Protecting society at the cost of civil liberties, hmmm that's a dangerous game your playing there pengwunio...

The whole western world's judicial system's are based off that idea, there is no dangerous game being played here.

 

[Cyrus]

Really, it's based off of violations of civil liberties to protect others? That's news to me, and the rest of the criminal justice system.

It's not based on that idea at all pengwunio. It's based on the ideas of Cesar Becarria.

 

[Pengwuino]

You do realize locking someone up in a cell for a few years is as big of a civil rights violation as putting someone on a sex offenders list... I don't know what criminal justice system you've heard of... but around here, they put people in jail.

 

[Moonbear]

That's a strawman. The idea of no list makes people think they have a false sense of security. Think of how people's minds work in these situations. If you move into a neighborhood and have no idea a sex offender lives there, it is far more likely that they will think the danger doesn't exist. That's just how people think! The list at the very least makes them realize the problem exists. This makes it a complete strawman, you can't say people are smart enough to realize the danger exists if the list doesn't exist yet say they are too stupid to realize just because a list exists doesn't mean there is no danger.

No, actually, I'd say you're arguing the strawman since you're trying to misrepresent my argument in order to challenge it, which is the definition of a strawman argument.

I grew up long before these lists existed, and I can assure you parents were aware such dangers existed and made sure to supervise their children.

It actually doesn't matter which way you look at it...either people are unaware there is any danger without the list, thus with the list, can be lulled into a false sense of security that they know who is a danger and remain oblivious to the others who still pose a danger, OR they are already aware such dangers exist without a list, and to know that even with the list, they still cannot necessarily trust people not on the list. Either way, the list is not helping enough to warrant public humiliation of people who have already served their time.

I personally believe no violation exists if the punishment of being on the list is handed down during proceedings. If it's done after hte fact, then i do believe it is a violation of civil rights.

And that's exactly what happened to people convicted prior to the creation of the list.

 

[Pengwuino]

You're still ruling out the idea that people might be more aware with a list around and still using this argument that since people can't know everyone who is a danger, they shouldn't know that anyone is a danger.

 

[Cyrus]

You do realize locking someone up in a cell for a few years is as big of a civil rights violation as putting someone on a sex offenders list... I don't know what criminal justice system you've heard of... but around here, they put people in jail.

Being sentenced to jail for violating a crime is not an infringment on your civil rights. You forfeited those rights when you chose to break the law. You are given those rights back after you serve your time. And even while in jail, you still have rights.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And with the registry, you still don't know.

What? With a registry you obviously have more information than you would have had otherwise. Hell, with a criminal background check an employer doesn't know that their employees aren't criminals or aren't going to do criminal things. So employers shouldn't run background checks on their employees. It just gives them a false sense of security obviously.

Personally if I had a kid and was thinking about buying a house I think I would be rather relieved to think that if there was a halfway house for pedophiles next door I'd know about it.

Then you need to change the severity of the punishment to fit the crime. A more severe punishment is acceptable, an excessive punishment is not. It's subtle, but the difference is there. You clearly fall under the criminalogical view point that the punishment must be so sever as to deter the crime from happening. (In effect, deterrence theory.)

I do think that the punishment should be changed but there are too many people who look at these pedophiles like they're victims of the system. Poor thing can't get a job because he raped a 10 year old girl, boo hoo. He's lucky that he isn't dead.
My concern isn't detterence in this case, it's protecting general society. That's the point of putting people like this in jail, to keep them someplace where they can't do harm. So when these people move into a place in some neighborhood after they have been released from prison what's protecting the children that live their from them? Most of these people have already fooled others into thinking they were trust worthy, what's to keep them from doing it again?

 

[Pengwuino]

And is that different from being put on a list at your sentencing?

Mind you, I'm not condoning putting people on the last if that was not part of their sentencing.

 

[Cyrus]

And is that different from being put on a list at your sentencing?

Yes, it is.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes, it is.

I suppose your right. You do get to live out your life when your just on the list.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Being sentenced to jail for violating a crime is not an infringment on your civil rights. You forfeited those rights when you chose to break the law. You are given those rights back after you serve your time. And even while in jail, you still have rights.

Precisely! And when people leave jail most of the time they still have obligations to keep. Some of them have to submit to drug tests. Some aren't allowed to be in bars. Most people who commit heinous crimes never get out of jail. These people have it easy if all they have to do is have every one know what they did. And if they don't want to submit to that then they can go back to jail.

Ever heard of the term "cruel and unusual punishment?" Especially considering that most people who commit these crimes are expressing a mental illness rather than a conscious decision to break the law, no, a life of public humiliation does not seem fitting.

If they are so mentally ill that they did not even consciously decide to comit their crimes then that's even more reason to regard them as a danger. And until they have changed the law to keep these people from being released back into society or figured out a way to 'cure' them then parents should have some resource to help them protect their children.
No one answered my question by the way...

Tell me, if you were on that city council and the parents of a victim of a sexual preditor you allowed to live in your city asked you why you did not let them know there was a child molester living next door to them what would you tell them?
Would you tell them that you were protecting him? That it was more important to you to protect a child molester than to protect their daughter who wound up being molested by the man?