posted on May 25, 2003 11:10:54 PM new
If a person in the U.S. is charged with a sex related crime, they're put on a list for everyone to see. I think only the ones that commit sex crimes get to go this list, so my question is, should all criminals be put on a public list so you can check who your neighbours are? Or, should only the ones that commit sex crimes be centered out?
posted on May 25, 2003 11:31:52 PM new
I think that sex offenders are one thing, petty crimes are another. I actually have some objections to the sex offenders list and absolutely woud object to a list that is wider ranging. Hell, I won't fly Delta right now because they are using the system that runs background & credit checks checks. These types of systems only succeed in opening the door to stripping people of what few privacies they still have.
posted on May 26, 2003 12:16:45 AM new
I fully support the sex crimes lists and my reasons are that these inviduals very rarely are able to rehab fully and it is good to know where they are....
Other major criminals are usually out on parole and their actvities are supposed to be monitored on a regular basis....
I wouldn't support any other lists, criminals that do their time are supposed to be able to come back into society and be apart of it.
They paid the price for their mistake.
posted on May 26, 2003 12:25:20 AM new
The only reason I object to the sex offenders registry is that offenders likelyhood to reoffend is increased when under great deals of stress. I can't think of much more stressful that having people picketing in your front yard and your face on posters all over the neighborhood which seems to have become a distrubing trend in many areas.
posted on May 26, 2003 04:23:31 AM new
I wholeheartedly agree with the sex crimes list. Had it not been for that list, I never would have known that a habitual sex offender moved 4 doors down from me and only 3 away from my daughter and granddaughter. The Sheriff's department sent officers door-to-door with the notice. We were able to watch this man and make notes that he spend a considerable amount of time in front of the elementary school and the local park where children gather. He's back in prison now for doing just that. It violated his parole. Prison is exactly where the scumbag belongs. Well, I think of other places he belongs, but it's a holiday and I'll be kinder about it today.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on May 26, 2003 07:35:50 AM new
Lists such as the ones published on the internet violate constitutional guarantees of privacy and since it is a punishment imposed after the offender has already served a sentence, it's like double jeopardy. Another problem is that innocent people may be added to the list...either through error or unjust conviction.
On the other hand, while sex offenders are on parole, notification of neighbors may be advisable...especially when sex offenders and children are involved.
posted on May 26, 2003 09:21:18 AM new
Twelve - I do not disagree and if all people acted as Cheryl and her community did simply watching, making note and reporting problems I would have no objections. What causes my problems is when the community does not allow the released offender to even have a chance to re-enter society. Front yard protesters, posted posters, following offenders attempting to sabotage employment.... these are the actions that make the lists problematic.
posted on May 26, 2003 11:11:51 AM new
I think the root cause is being overlooked... if these people had not committed the crime to begin with, then they wouldn't be on the list.
posted on May 26, 2003 11:45:34 AM new
It is not punishment imposed after the sentence it is PART of the sentence. If you commit the crime and are prosecuted for it then the sex offender list is part of the sentence you have to be burdened with due to you criminal activity.
posted on May 26, 2003 12:00:23 PM new
Why is it only part of the punishment for people who've commited sex crimes? Doesn't it seem to you like they're centered out? I saw a blip on TV about a girl that had sex with a guy that was underage. She was a year older and he told his friends and she was charged. Now she is on those lists along with serial rapists, etc. Do you see what I mean?
posted on May 26, 2003 12:16:00 PM new
Krafty - I completely understand your position. I think that there should be a more detailed criteria for inclusion. Violent offenders, serial offenders, these the public should be aware of, situations like the one you mention absolutely should not.
posted on May 26, 2003 02:08:21 PM new
The duration of requirement, confidentiality provision and penalties etc. vary from state to state.
Megan's Law by State
posted on May 26, 2003 02:43:09 PM newLists such as the ones published on the internet violate constitutional guarantees of privacy
The way I see it, if you commit a sex crime, especially a violent one or one against a child, you should have no rights at all - to anything. I believe I read somewhere that statistics show that most rapists, rape again and that a good majority of them cannot be "cured" of their need to rape. In rape cases, the only ones that should be entitled to privacy are the ones who were raped. They live with this their entire lives. The rapist shouldn't have done the crime if he/she (noticed I didn't single men out) wanted anominity in their lives.
In Ohio, the Sheriff's department is supposed to notify the neighbors if a sex offender moves into their neighborhood. They don't always or the rapist slips away. The list is needed for that very reason.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on May 26, 2003 02:51:42 PM new
Helen - I don't know when that map was last updated but most of California's is online. It is also available on CD-rom. I don't know how other states do it but Californias online version does not give names or address but instead is a in the form of a map showing vacinities of serious and high risk offenders.
As you can imagine, being in a downtown area I'm surrounded. There are over 30 registered offenders in a six block radious around my place.
Edited because it's damn near impossible to type when you break the nail on your index finger
[ edited by neonmania on May 26, 2003 04:06 PM ]
posted on May 26, 2003 03:55:17 PM new
Those charged with sexual abuse should not be placed on the offenders until they have been convicted.
Once convicted of a felony, they have certain of their rights suspended, (voting & ownership or firearms).
Convicted pedophiles (sp?) have been proven to be a continued risk of continued sexual crimes.
It is only right that their currect housing locations are published so the people living in those neighborhoods can take precautions to know where their children are at all times.
posted on May 27, 2003 11:02:41 AM new
I don't believe in sex crimes registries, not because I worry about the rights of molestors* (I don't) but because they don't deliver on their promise to make kids safer.
The FBI says that between 80 and 90 percent of child sex-abuse victims are abused by people they know (friends of their family, school and daycare employees, or relatives.) People are far less likely to check the names of their friends and relatives than they are to check the names of strangers i.e. "that weird-looking guy who just moved in down the street." These programs don't warn people against the individuals who pose the greatest danger to their children.
Thus, registries (along with simplistic "stranger-danger" programs) create a false sense of security that can actually backfire.
Meanwhile, the number of false alarms and bad information has been increasing - and most importantly, innocent people who are not sex offenders are being mistaken for people who are listed and being harassed or even harmed.
One of my highschool friends works as a deputy in a nearby county handling sex crimes. She told me she knows of two instances in her county where letters went out to neighbors informing them that a sex offender had taken up residence in a particular apartment, and that turned out to be wrong. In one case, neighbors had already put out flyers with the picture of the (innocent) man who actually lived at that address to warn people of the "dangerous" offender in their complex. There have been cases of actual threats and violence against people who were mistakenly identified from registries.
That brings up the point of vigilanteism. The fact is this: You can say people aren't supposed to "take the law into their own hands" but the fact is they do. Houses have been burned down, people have been targeted for hit-and-run and other violence has been threatened or performed.
My last real objection is that these laws may actually make molestation harder to prosecute. As Megan's Laws have spread across the country, law-enforcement professionals say they've seen an increase in the number of molestors that "go underground" - abandon their identity to escape the scarlet letter. And there's no doubt that the branding makes it much harder to rehabilitate offenders. (Yes, they can be rehabilitated, contrary to popular opinion.)
Finally, that asterik * in the first paragraph ... I do think the laws are unfair in two ways. First, the laws apply to people who were convicted before the laws were passed. Second, many states don't make a distinction between people who commit offenses against adults and people who commit offenses against children. Until they modified it, Florida's registry included a lot of vagrants who were arrested for indecent exposure after they were caught urinating outdoors. (A common arrest charge for homeless people.)
[ edited by neonmania on May 26, 2003 04:06 PM ]