Sex Offenders

[My Spot]

There is reasonable debate on if they can be rehabilitated. Perhaps they are like dogs with rabies.

Then they should be locked up permanently.

 

[Fawlty]

If the offenders are safe and rehabilitated, then why do they need to register?

It doesn't need to be higher, given the stakes involved. It just needs to be present. Even with the registry, recidivism is not down. These people are still committing sexual or violent crimes at roughly 31% recidivism. Why allow rapists and child molesters back out on the streets at all? That's the point.

https://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html

That's a really good article that lays out the difficulties in studying this. Your first question is a bit of a wreck. I didn't say that that offenders were safe and rehabilitated, and the purpose of the registry is for protection of people, and not a tool for rehabilitation. For what it is, I think it's a really good thing. It can only be a minor deterrent in any case, by raising awareness in the community. It doesn't address the mental problems these people have, only give aware people a tool to make their kids or other vulnerable people safer.

And again you're strawmanning me a little in your second question. You're right that the focus should be on the harm that is caused by the crime, but making bad arguments about rates of re-offense/recidivism is not the way to go about that. There seems to be a lot of that in your style of argument. You should improve that.

 

[AFewDollarsMore]

3 levels of sex offenders. only level 2 and 3 are publicly outed asthey should be. cheaper to keep them at home than in jail

 

[Undying Poster]

They should just build a penal colony with child robots for these people to live in.

Or being given the option of castration.

Down here in Florida we already have sex offender colonies, look it up. Great state to live in.

 

[mjmj]

I know the legal implications of student/teacher relations. My question, which remains unanswered, was specifically related to a student teacher sleeping with a student above the age of consent. You say it's illegal in some places, and I'm just asking where.

Actually, this was your question.

Where do you live that an 21 y/o dating an 18 y/o would be considered any sort of sex crime?

 

[Darwinambrosius]

Actually, this was your question.

I was referencing the one I had asked about student teachers.

And do you have a source for student teachers applying there?

 

[Undying Poster]

The sex offender registry seems to be working really well, not sure how that's a failure. The public urination thing is pretty much a myth- check your own local area and tell me if there's a single dumpster pisser on it. Also, I question the folk fact of super high recidivism as compared to other crimes. I haven't seen much support for that claim.

Has there been any studies or data that shows if it works? It's funny sex offenders are universally loathed and everyone agrees that they need more time but it is seemingly rare and I've honestly never heard of rapists or child molesters getting off easy - Plus they are really fucking hated in prison and are subject to assaults, rape, and murder behind bars. No need to fix something that isn't broken but then I honestly don't know if it is working because I've never looked it up.

 

[Fawlty]

If they're worth registering then why not just go ahead and make them sew a scarlet "P" on all their clothes?

Because they're a special case. Sexual assault is under-reported enough, and the psychological harm from being molested/assaulted is serious enough that a different approach is used. It's okay to go into a gray area that doesn't conform to rigid standards of rights and punishments to deal with special problems. A property criminal like a car thief is much more likely to re-offend, but the target of a car thief is an adult, and that crime doesn't leave the same emotional scars. So the victims have more natural protection from the consequences despite being at greater risk. Kids are vulnerable to the consequences while being at lower risk. So as a society you craft an approach to this problem to fit. The choice we have made is to let people know where the danger lives. A mother or father who has information about local offenders can warn his kids about the pedophile a block away, and the chance of their child being a victim of that offender goes way down. It goes a little far to compare that to The Scarlet Letter. Kid touchers aren't Hester Prynne.

 

[Fawlty]

Has there been any studies or data that shows if it works? It's funny sex offenders are universally loathed and everyone agrees that they need more time but it is seemingly rare and I've honestly never heard of rapists or child molesters getting off easy - Plus they are really fucking hated in prison and are subject to assaults, rape, and murder behind bars. No need to fix something that isn't broken but then I honestly don't know if it is working because I've never looked it up.

The registry doesn't change rates of re-offense as far as I know. I don't think that metric can answer the question of whether it works or not- a parent who can identify a local child molester and warn their kids will always say it works.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Because they're a special case. Sexual assault is under-reported enough, and the psychological harm from being molested/assaulted is serious enough that a different approach is used. It's okay to go into a gray area that doesn't conform to rigid standards of rights and punishments to deal with special problems. A property criminal like a car thief is much more likely to re-offend, but the target of a car thief is an adult, and that crime doesn't leave the same emotional scars. So the victims have more natural protection from the consequences despite being at greater risk. Kids are vulnerable to the consequences while being at lower risk. So as a society you craft an approach to this problem to fit. The choice we have made is to let people know where the danger lives. A mother or father who has information about local offenders can warn his kids about the pedophile a block away, and the chance of their child being a victim of that offender goes way down. It goes a little far to compare that to The Scarlet Letter. Kid touchers aren't Hester Prynne.

I understand all that. My comment is a dig at the registry being a bit of a half-measure. Who really looks at these registries? Why not just let us all know who we're dealing with if their sentence is to have the crime follow them around the rest of their lives?

 

[mjmj]

I was referencing the one I had asked about student teachers.

Just a bad example on my part. I should have just left it at "teacher".

 

[Darwinambrosius]

Just a bad example on my part. I should have just left it at "teacher".

lol I gotcha. Yeah, that's typically a legal issue across the board. I was just recalling my own time student teaching and how the state wanted as little to do with us as possible.

 

[Fawlty]

I understand all that. My comment is a dig at the registry being a bit of a half-measure. Who really looks at these registries? Why not just let us all know who we're dealing with if their sentence is to have the crime follow them around the rest of their lives?

That's an easy one to answer. A pedophile still has the right to buy groceries. If you identify them explicitly in person at all times, you're doing too much damage to their ability to subsist, and you're inviting them to be assaulted at all times. It's a totally different level of stigma and it would go way over the line as far as civil liberties go. With the registry, the people who have an interest in it are parents, cops, schools, etc. A half-measure is appropriate because it puts together public information in a way that people can proactively get it, and as far as I know it doesn't do much harm to the people on the registry. I really dislike the abuse of the term "half-measure" ever since Breaking Bad. It's advocating for an all-or-nothing approach to a situation that requires subtlety.

 

[sub_thug]

That's a really good article that lays out the difficulties in studying this. Your first question is a bit of a wreck. I didn't say that that offenders were safe and rehabilitated, and the purpose of the registry is for protection of people, and not a tool for rehabilitation. For what it is, I think it's a really good thing. It can only be a minor deterrent in any case, by raising awareness in the community. It doesn't address the mental problems these people have, only give aware people a tool to make their kids or other vulnerable people safer.

And again you're strawmanning me a little in your second question. You're right that the focus should be on the harm that is caused by the crime, but making bad arguments about rates of re-offense/recidivism is not the way to go about that. There seems to be a lot of that in your style of argument. You should improve that.

I understand that it's a tool to protect the people, which is why I said in the OP that its existence is an admission of sorts that the penal system is not doing its duty to protect its citizenry. We can fix that if the system turns up the heat on these assholes.

Would you recommend that I use smugness and ad hominems to alienate people that don't agree with me instead? Seems like a good way to argue.

 

[sub_thug]

Then they should be locked up permanently.

I'm not a huge fan of life imprisonment. In most of those cases, why not just bury the guy?

 

[Fawlty]

I understand that it's a tool to protect the people, which is why I said in the OP that its existence is an admission of sorts that the penal system is not doing its duty to protect its citizenry. We can fix that if the system turns up the heat on these assholes.

Would you recommend that I use smugness and ad hominems to alienate people that don't agree with me instead? Seems like a good way to argue.

It's weird that you think that the existence of a useful tool like an offender registry means the penal system needs changing. It might be that it's a really good approach to the problem of how to deal with sex offenders without giving them all life sentences. You're going to keep encountering "smugness" from me as long as you continue to make bad arguments.

 

[sub_thug]

It's weird that you think that the existence of a useful tool like an offender registry means the penal system needs changing. It might be that it's a really good approach to the problem of how to deal with sex offenders without giving them all life sentences. You're going to keep encountering "smugness" from me as long as you continue to make bad arguments.

I absolutely think it needs changing. If you are a pedo, violent rapist, etc., then you should be put to death. Registry not needed. My argument is a really simple one. All you are doing with your argument style is making people think you're an ass who can't be reasoned with. Congratulations.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That's an easy one to answer. A pedophile still has the right to buy groceries. If you identify them explicitly in person at all times, you're doing too much damage to their ability to subsist, and you're inviting them to be assaulted at all times. It's a totally different level of stigma and it would go way over the line as far as civil liberties go. With the registry, the people who have an interest in it are parents, cops, schools, etc. A half-measure is appropriate because it puts together public information in a way that people can proactively get it, and as far as I know it doesn't do much harm to the people on the registry. I really dislike the abuse of the term "half-measure" ever since Breaking Bad. It's advocating for an all-or-nothing approach to a situation that requires subtlety.

So the local grocer can't refuse service based on criminal history?

What civil liberties are you referring to exactly? People agree to all sorts of shit as a condition of release. Moving freely is a right, but oftentimes paroles aren't allowed to leave the state. At least that's my understanding.

Assault is a crime.

Don't kids need to know who the pervs are? Do you expect them to memorize the registry?

If you're satisfied with the half-measure then so be it. Personally I'm not much of a fan of registries and would be interested to know how this one prevents recidivism.

 

[Fawlty]

I absolutely think it needs changing. If you are a pedo, violent rapist, etc., then you should be put to death. Registry not needed. My argument is a really simple one. All you are doing with your argument style is making people think you're an ass who can't be reasoned with. Congratulations.

You whine about me being unreasonable and an ass. Yet you believe that only the most extreme possible solution is viable- death at the hands of government- and you therefore reject any other argument. That is a perfect example of being unreasonable. And because you didn't realize that until I pointed it out just now, you're also really stupid.

 

[Gregolian]

The problem with "Death to violent rapists and pedo's" argument is that it's incredibly expensive to house Death Row guys.