Shooting of two registered sex offenders

[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?

 

[Pengwuino]

I've always wondered if anyone is actually convinced of anything in arguments like these...

 

[Curious3141]

Most murderers are people who have done so because they were robbing a liquer store or some such thing.

Wow. So you'd be OK to have a person who killed a store owner in a robbery living next to you unbeknownst ? How about a person who kills people whilst carjacking ? Like to car pool with him ?

I'm sorry, I just don't "get" your rather selective morality.

The murders who kill people simply because they like to kill people generally get life sentences and are never released back into the public.

This is not true in all cases.

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.

Umm.. if a guy has been found repeatedly guilty of having child porn on his computer, he may be required to register as a sex offender. He has never actually touched a child in his life and does not show any inclination to. Would you say his "sexual appetite" convinces you he's a dangerous predator ?

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.

YES ! And how many of these people who parents trust are on the sex offenders' list ? How many of them are first offenders without a prior ? You've kind of deflated your own point here !

Not to sound mean spirited, but that someone you know seems to have put their child in jeopardy by not being cautious enough. The onus is on you to prove that a registry would've made a difference in this case.

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

And WITH the registry, would they still know ? Every time ? When it's someone they trust, with no priors, etc. ?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

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.


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?

Well how do they use there psychic powers now to look at the public record, as far as I know things like this are available at your local police station, it's not like someones spidey sense starts tingling and they go off and check out the register were they had no reason to before. If you're that worried and you move into a new area, or you see someone hanging around kids, whether there is a fee involved or not is what is going to make people check. The fee is just for paper trail purposes.

Someone mentioned that if a convicted paeodophile moves into an area people should be alerted to this, that's agreeable so long as you don't go too far and give out the guys specific address, all that happens then is vigilantes go and smash up his house and he dissapears of the radar, where as a t least before he was registered and people could keep track of him, now he's an unknown quantity in communities who have no knowledge or even possible knowledge of knowing he's living there.

The list is fine, it is a method of keeping track of offenders, making it freely available is not sensible.

Quite apart from it driving people underground and off the radar, it does little to prevent further reoffending.

And that's not even including the civil liberty angle.

 

[Pengwuino]

Schrodinger, people are notified when sex offenders move into their neighborhood already.

Umm.. if a guy has been found repeatedly guilty of having child porn on his computer, he may be required to register as a sex offender. He has never actually touched a child in his life and does not show any inclination to. Would you say his "sexual appetite" convinces you he's a dangerous predator ?

This is like saying a guy with a bunch of normal porn on their computer will have no inclanation to having sex. What logic is that? That's like saying someone buying a pound of coccaine doesn't actually have an inclination towards doing drugs.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Schrodinger, people are notified when sex offenders move into their neighborhood already.



This is like saying a guy with a bunch of normal porn on their computer will have no inclanation to having sex. What logic is that? That's like saying someone buying a pound of coccaine doesn't actually have an inclination towards doing drugs.

They are told peoples adresses you mean? In my country all that would happen is the people in question would be ostracised and I would imagine, no actually I've seen it in action, scratch that, they would get their house smashed up and be forced to move, perhaps people are less violently opposed to these people in the US?

Sorry pengwino but having child porn on your computer and being a sexual predator are two entirely diffent kettles of fish, what your forgetting is, I may have a gig worth of porn about say, amputation fetishism, it doesn't mean I don't have an ordinary list of relationships, and an ordinary sex life, not all child perverts are obsessed or only able to have sex with children.

Your making dangerous assumptions about sexuality if I dress up in high heels and stockings etc etc, it's not necessarily something I'd share with other people, it also doesn't mean I like to walk down the street dressed as a lady or indulge in sexual acts in this clothing.

It's the same with rape web sites many people may have indulged in a sexual fantasy it doesn't meant that all those who did are rapists, they are potential rapists, but probably only a minority will go onto indulge that fantasy.

 

[nazgjunk]

I haven't read the thread, shame on me.

By allowing those names to be know to the public you do almost the same thing as death sentence, the only difference is that you're not sure they're going to get killed. Either kill them, or respect their privacy. I'd take the latter.

 

[Moonbear]

By allowing those names to be know to the public you do almost the same thing as death sentence, the only difference is that you're not sure they're going to get killed. Either kill them, or respect their privacy. I'd take the latter.

And seems like a pretty harsh punishment for someone caught urinating in public, doesn't it? It also seems like a harsh punishment for someone convicted of raping his college girlfriend when she was too drunk to legally consent (I don't condone those actions, but I don't think a life sentence fits that crime...in most cases, just being dragged through the courts is enough to get the guy to see where he went wrong and keep him from every trying something like that again), or for someone who was 18 and had sex with their 16 y.o. boy/girlfriend and was convicted of statutory rape when the parents found out. Just look at what you're all assuming as you're talking about the list..."wouldn't you want to know if there was a child molester in your neighborhood?" So, someone who thought they were having consensual sex and learned their partner was not legally able to consent, and would never make that mistake again, is added to the same list as child molesters and treated by anyone reading the list as if they are child molesters.

If they are not safe to be out on the streets, do not release them to the streets, but if they are safe to be out on the streets, then they had their day in court and have already had judgment passed on them, and were not released to continue to have judgement passed on them by their neighbors. If they are still under court supervision, such as being on parole, then why would just the sex offenders be singled out and not any violent offenders? Personally, I'd be more worried to know that a neighbor has been convicted of drug dealing or armed robbery than that they were caught with their pants down in public.

With something like parole, there are terms and conditions and checkpoints. If someone violates their parole, they know they are going back to jail, and if they do not violate their parole, they know when it will end. With these registries, someone who is a one-time offender is NEVER off the list, there's no way for them to prove they are rehabilitated to get off the list. If they were convicted of statutory rape at 18 or 19, and have learned their lesson, or just have gotten older and have no interest in dating 16 year olds because they are far enough different in age for it to not be attractive to them, they are STILL on that list, and people see their name on that list and treat them the same as if they were a child molester.

 

[Gabrielle]

There were two more related articles in this morning's paper:

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...20canada.shtml

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...gistries.shtml

 

[Curious3141]

This is like saying a guy with a bunch of normal porn on their computer will have no inclanation to having sex. What logic is that?

Sure, "normal porn". So everyone enjoying the good ol' boy on girl pr0n expects to be able to screw the pizza delivery girl or the nurse in a hospital ward or the air stewardess in flight, or... I'm betraying how much porn I watch.

And plenty of straight guys love girl on girl action - that doesn't mean we expect to get that sort of stuff in real life. Would be nice though.

And I know marlon and I both love horror/slasher films, that doesn't mean we're going to don hockey masks and carve up dubious virgins in our spare time.

Point being, there is a disconnect between fantasy and reality - if you can't draw a distinction, then the problem lies within you.

 

[Dawguard]

With something like parole, there are terms and conditions and checkpoints. If someone violates their parole, they know they are going back to jail, and if they do not violate their parole, they know when it will end. With these registries, someone who is a one-time offender is NEVER off the list, there's no way for them to prove they are rehabilitated to get off the list. If they were convicted of statutory rape at 18 or 19, and have learned their lesson, or just have gotten older and have no interest in dating 16 year olds because they are far enough different in age for it to not be attractive to them, they are STILL on that list, and people see their name on that list and treat them the same as if they were a child molester.

I understand the idea of fairness behind this argument, and but if this problem is to be solved then the answer is not the offender list. The problem is to create different misdemeanors or felonies for things like this: things that wouldn't be in a class that goes on the list. I agree that the cases you refer to shouldn't have their entire life damaged, but the solution of getting rid of the registration list is akin to getting rid of prison so that innocent people won't be locked up.

There are far to many people who commit rapes, molistations, etc., who are let out of prison that commit the same acts. While not all do, I find that the risk is far to great, and instead of warning people with a list, I propose a mandatory life sentence or capital punishment for any sex offender. Doubtless this won't be a popular idea, but it's my idea for a solution.

 

[GeorginaS]

I think the Statutory Ape took the idea a little far by suggesting that it would be nice if there were a halfway house for sex offenders next door to the new home you were buying. Well, no kidding. A halfway house for people in transitional time being reintegrated into society next door to me, regardless of the crime they committed, would not be desirable to me. However, he said halfway house for sex offenders next door as opposed to having a list with the name and address of someone who has been released from jail after having been convicted of committing a “sexually related” crime and is in the same neighbourhood.

The whole “registry” issue for sex offenders is a placebo for the public anyway. (And I note, here, how most people are concerning themselves with protecting children – which I grant is tantamount – but what about how vulnerable women are to sex offenders living in the neighbourhood? Again, I digress.)

Plain and simple, your children are far more vulnerable to a sexual attack or molestation or inappropriate touching from someone you and they know than some released ex convict who lives down the street. Statistics bear it out:

90% of child victims know their offender, with almost half of the offenders being a family member. Of sexual assaults against people age 12 and up, approximately 80% of the victims know the offender.

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/facts.htm"

Random sexual assault attacks are the aberration, not the norm or most frequent occurrences. So I would suggest that, short of halfway house next door information, the registry is all but useless, and a form of shunning.

 

[Moonbear]

There are far to many people who commit rapes, molistations, etc., who are let out of prison that commit the same acts.

This claim gets thrown around a lot, but the statistics don't support it. Part of the problem is that different definitions of recidivism are used and too often, all sex offenders are lumped together, just as they are in the registry. Recidivism can be reported as committing another sexual offense, which may or may not be the same type of sexual offense as the original conviction, or it can be reported as committing any later offense. Many studies use arrest records, not conviction records, which seems pretty biased to me since they could be getting arrested wrongly just because they have the prior arrest on their record that casts suspicion their way more often.

Here's a Department of Justice report on the issue, that explains all these issues.
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

And for a shorter version, a list of myths and facts about sex offenders, also from the DOJ.
http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

Something I thought I'd highlight from that site:

It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. For example, one study of 108,580 non-sex criminals released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 found that nearly 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release from incarceration; 47% were reconvicted; and 41% were ultimately returned to prison or jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics).

That's comparing all reconvictions for sex offenders, not just reconviction for another sexual offense.

I also notice on the DOJ site that they are often specifically stating that prostitution is excluded from their statistics. It wouldn't be hard to imagine that if prostitution were included in sex offender statistics, it would raise the recidivism rates pretty substantially.

 

[Moonbear]

The problem is to create different misdemeanors or felonies for things like this: things that wouldn't be in a class that goes on the list.

Here is something that addresses that issue as well, and explains why it is difficult to predict reoffenders among sex offenders.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_6.htm

I don't think the solution is to just change who goes on such a list. If someone is in a high risk category for reoffending, they should be treated the same as anyone else in the prison population with such risk, which is to either not be released, or to be released on an long parole period where they are supervised (i.e., to ensure they continue receiving treatment if treatment is necessary).

The site also provides more information about the one study that is often cited by those claiming sex offenders have high recidivism rates.

In contrast, Doren (1998), in a review of the research, reports that the true recidivism base rate over 25 years for extrafamilial sexual abusers is 52% and for rapists is 39%. Doren, who is involved with the sexual predator program at Mendota Mental Health Institute in Wisconsin, uses the recidivism rates from Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997). This is an extremely high risk sample. The Prentky, et al. sample consisted of 251 men who were committed to the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons (MTC). Persons who were charged after being released from MTC and persons who were residents at MTC but were previously discharged, reoffended and were recommitted were included in the sample. Also, a charge, not a conviction, was used as the index of reoffense.

In addition, the figures of 39% and 52% are estimates from the survival analysis; the percentage of new offenses at the end of the study period (25 years) was 26% for rapists and 32% for child molesters. Doren maintains that the survival analysis provides a more accurate approximation of actual recidivism.

They also state this:

In general, the factors most strongly related to violent and sexual recidivism include having the characteristics of psychopathy as defined by a high PCL-R score (i.e. Hare, 1991, 1996, in press; Hart & Hare, in press; Rice, 1997), a history of criminal behavior, and being young. Rice and Harris (1997) report that the combination of psychopathy, measured by the PCL-R, and sexual deviancy, based on phallometric test results, resulted in the highest recidivism rate in their sample of sex offenders.

This particular study that they cite has been cited quite a bit. Gee, imagine that, psychopaths with a history of criminal behavior (i.e., prior convictions...they're already recidivists) are strongly related to recidivism among sexual offenders (okay, young psychopaths who already have a history of criminal behavior). That doesn't even mean they are only at risk for sexual offense recidivism, but violent offenses in general.

Here's another report that breaks down offenses by category and uses predominantly convictions (though, for a few regions, charges and convictions are used) to calculate recidivism rates.
http://ww2.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/200403-2_e.asp

Here's an interesting tidbit from AZ's Department of Corrections that measures recidivism rates by new convictions (i.e., return to prison), rather than just accusations (i.e., arrests).

Among the 1,649 sex offenders released from the Arizona prison system to the supervision of state parole officers, 70% eventually returned to prison with a new felony conviction for a sex crime, including 1.5% who committed a new sex crime while under state supervision.

http://www.azcorrections.gov/Recidivism.htm

When you do the math, that's 70% of 51.4% of prisoners released (the study was based on 3205 released prisoners, which included those released to supervision of parole officers, and those who were not). 70% of 1649 is 1154.3 (I'm guessing they rounded a bit , so let's say 1154 reoffenders). That 1154 out of the total released and studied (3205) is about 36%.

So, help me understand this, because it's reported in the very next paragraph:

Furthermore, 0.5% returned with a new felony conviction for a sex crime within one year of release, 2.0% within two years, 3.4% within three years, 4.6% within four years, 5. 1 % within five years, 6. 0% within six years, 6.7% within seven years, 7. 1 % within eight years, 7.2% within nine years, 7.8% within ten years, 7.9% within eleven years, and 8.7% within twelve years.

The bold emphasis is mine. This is referring to the total number of released prisoners, but even assuming only those released on parole ever reoffend, the numbers aren't adding up. The prisoners were released over the years FY 1984-FY 1998. So, okay, there were an additional 14 years not accounted for among the earliest released in the study, but if only 8.7% have reoffended within 12 years, and that there's a fairly small increase each year (about 1%), how does that ever reach 36%, even assuming this is a very current study (I can't find the date of the study, so it may not be current!)? It looks like there's some sort of error in the calculations there (or have I missed something?). But, one could see how someone might wind up reading that information quickly and end up reporting that 70% of sex offenders reoffend on some other website that cites that report.

 

[Gabrielle]

There have been articles on a daily basis about this topic and I don't think it's going to come to an end any time soon. At least until they decide whether a change in the registries is necessary.

When you click on the link, click on "Search the archives" and scroll down the page. Type in sex offenders in the box that says "Enter search word or phrase" and it will bring up recent articles.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...421brief.shtml
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...marshall.shtml
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...hallprof.shtml
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...422crime.shtml

 

[GeorginaS]

What's interesting ("interesting" simply because I can't find a more apt word at this moment) is that the registry appears to be grounds for, and incitement of, vigilante justice rather than serving any real socially beneficial purpose. If your children are at a far greater risk with Weird Uncle So and Such than they are some stranger down the street (ex con or no) than the registry appears to serve a purpose other than the one of the previously mentioned, proverbial scarlet letter.

 

[jeninlax]

Forgive me

Forgive me if they may sound rude, but I am a parent. As my human right to be a parent it is my job to protect my child, not the governments. I will live in a neighborhood where sex offenders just won't go. They are poor, they probably just got out of prison...It is my decision what kind of school my child goes to, and where we live. My child doesn't go to parks without me. And when he's older, I will know all his friends numbers, keep a curfew, etc. Having a registry isn't that much protection.

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.


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?