Page 1 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,171

27 Mar 2013, 4:31 pm

It is said that the sex offenders registry is used to protect people from sex offenders. Well if people need protection from them then why have a sex offender's registry at all? Why aren't they being given multiple life sentences instead?



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 792

27 Mar 2013, 4:46 pm

It kind of costs money to keep people locked up forever so that might have something to do with it.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

27 Mar 2013, 4:50 pm

One of the biggest issues with the sex offender registry is that it has been expanded to include crimes one wouldn't normally consider a dangerous sex offenders. Like statutory rape or even sexting for teens, public urination, all types of things. The list should be more exclusive to people that might actually pose a risk to children.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,171

27 Mar 2013, 4:54 pm

Jacoby wrote:
One of the biggest issues with the sex offender registry is that it has been expanded to include crimes one wouldn't normally consider a dangerous sex offenders. Like statutory rape or even sexting for teens, public urination, all types of things. The list should be more exclusive to people that might actually pose a risk to children.


If they pose a risk to children then why release them from prison? Why not give them multiple life sentences?



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,171

27 Mar 2013, 4:55 pm

CSBurks wrote:
It kind of costs money to keep people locked up forever so that might have something to do with it.


Well there are murderers who are given life sentences. Why isn't the same logic applied?



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 792

27 Mar 2013, 5:03 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
CSBurks wrote:
It kind of costs money to keep people locked up forever so that might have something to do with it.


Well there are murderers who are given life sentences. Why isn't the same logic applied?


It depends on how the government views the 'severity' of the crime. Not all killers are given life sentences. The fact that rapists and child molesters aren't given life sentences is because of how the government has written and applied the laws. If you disagree with it, then I suggest you contact your state legislators.

Jacoby - I agree with you.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,171

27 Mar 2013, 5:08 pm

CSBurks wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
CSBurks wrote:
It kind of costs money to keep people locked up forever so that might have something to do with it.


Well there are murderers who are given life sentences. Why isn't the same logic applied?


It depends on how the government views the 'severity' of the crime. Not all killers are given life sentences. The fact that rapists and child molesters aren't given life sentences is because of how the government has written and applied the laws. If you disagree with it, then I suggest you contact your state legislators.

Jacoby - I agree with you.


I think that is an excellent idea.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Mar 2013, 5:34 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Well there are murderers who are given life sentences. Why isn't the same logic applied?


Let's turn that logic around.

People who commit sexual offenses aren't given life sentences. Why isn't the same logic applied to murderers?

Why have we uncritically accepted that the necessary punishment for murder is life imprisonment? Is there any rational connection between the crime and the purposes for which criminal law exists? Could those purposes be achieved with a lesser sentence? If not in all cases, then in some?

Many people here seem to treat the warehousing of criminals in prisons as a result in criminal law. But I would argue that imprisonment should not be not the end result of the criminal justice system. The end result of the criminal justice system should be, in my view, mitigating the impact of crime. The effectiveness of our justice systems should not be measured based on the number of people that we have locked up and for how long, but rather on its impact upon crime rates in our communities, its impact on recidivism and its impact on the reintegration of offenders into society.

Life imprisonment is a facile response. It lacks critical thought and it lacks any type of policy based approach to criminal justice. It does little to nothing to prevent crime, and creates only the illusion of security, rather than any genuine improvement in the safety of people.

Meanwhile, the sex offender registry seems to be predicated on a couple of notions:

1) That all sex offenders are made alike.
2) That no sex offender is capable of rehabilitation, or repudiation of the propensity towards sexual offenses.
3) That the existence of the sex offender registry creates security for communities.

None of these are generally accurate, let alone truthful.

1) When the teenager with a nude picture of another teenager on his cell phone is convicted of possession of child pornography, and placed in the same registry as a person who has committed a series of sexual assaults on multiple victims, the registry becomes ridiculous.

2) There are plenty of sexual offenders who have only learned meaningful lessons about consent when their conduct has led to charges. When movies and television tell young men that "No means maybe," and there has been no sex education in schools to tell them differently, then it may not be until they are on the receiving end of a criminal record that they learn that lesson. And it may be a lesson that they will never forget. To treat such a person in exactly the same way as the compulsive paedophile is uncritical.

3) This is the biggest lie of all. All sex offenders who are out of prison are in some community, somewhere. Drumming a paroled sex offender out of town simply transfers that person to another community--and incentivizes that person to lie, and attempt to hide. But while your community is drumming out one sex offender, another community is sending theirs on to you.

There are circumstances in which offenders must be put on strict conditions upon their release from prison. Prohibitions against working or volunteering with children and young people and exclusions around schools, these are purposive, targeted and they make sense. But the registry? That seems a very blunt instrument.


_________________
--James


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

27 Mar 2013, 7:01 pm

visagrunt wrote:
3) This is the biggest lie of all. All sex offenders who are out of prison are in some community, somewhere. Drumming a paroled sex offender out of town simply transfers that person to another community--and incentivizes that person to lie, and attempt to hide. But while your community is drumming out one sex offender, another community is sending theirs on to you.

There are circumstances in which offenders must be put on strict conditions upon their release from prison. Prohibitions against working or volunteering with children and young people and exclusions around schools, these are purposive, targeted and they make sense. But the registry? That seems a very blunt instrument.

QFT.

I recently posted these two studies here on WP. Public sex offender registries might even increase the number of sex offences in the community...
http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jr ... %20jle.pdf
http://crime.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ ... 086/658483

This only demonstrates that a policy towards sexual offences which is based on knee-jerk emotional outrage (which is - apparently - a required political stance in the US) is not very likely to be an efficient tool at preventing sexual offences...


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,387
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Mar 2013, 7:03 pm

visagrunt wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Well there are murderers who are given life sentences. Why isn't the same logic applied?


Let's turn that logic around.

People who commit sexual offenses aren't given life sentences. Why isn't the same logic applied to murderers?

Why have we uncritically accepted that the necessary punishment for murder is life imprisonment? Is there any rational connection between the crime and the purposes for which criminal law exists? Could those purposes be achieved with a lesser sentence? If not in all cases, then in some?

Many people here seem to treat the warehousing of criminals in prisons as a result in criminal law. But I would argue that imprisonment should not be not the end result of the criminal justice system. The end result of the criminal justice system should be, in my view, mitigating the impact of crime. The effectiveness of our justice systems should not be measured based on the number of people that we have locked up and for how long, but rather on its impact upon crime rates in our communities, its impact on recidivism and its impact on the reintegration of offenders into society.

Life imprisonment is a facile response. It lacks critical thought and it lacks any type of policy based approach to criminal justice. It does little to nothing to prevent crime, and creates only the illusion of security, rather than any genuine improvement in the safety of people.

Meanwhile, the sex offender registry seems to be predicated on a couple of notions:

1) That all sex offenders are made alike.
2) That no sex offender is capable of rehabilitation, or repudiation of the propensity towards sexual offenses.
3) That the existence of the sex offender registry creates security for communities.

None of these are generally accurate, let alone truthful.

1) When the teenager with a nude picture of another teenager on his cell phone is convicted of possession of child pornography, and placed in the same registry as a person who has committed a series of sexual assaults on multiple victims, the registry becomes ridiculous.

2) There are plenty of sexual offenders who have only learned meaningful lessons about consent when their conduct has led to charges. When movies and television tell young men that "No means maybe," and there has been no sex education in schools to tell them differently, then it may not be until they are on the receiving end of a criminal record that they learn that lesson. And it may be a lesson that they will never forget. To treat such a person in exactly the same way as the compulsive paedophile is uncritical.

3) This is the biggest lie of all. All sex offenders who are out of prison are in some community, somewhere. Drumming a paroled sex offender out of town simply transfers that person to another community--and incentivizes that person to lie, and attempt to hide. But while your community is drumming out one sex offender, another community is sending theirs on to you.

There are circumstances in which offenders must be put on strict conditions upon their release from prison. Prohibitions against working or volunteering with children and young people and exclusions around schools, these are purposive, targeted and they make sense. But the registry? That seems a very blunt instrument.


Regarding rehabilitation of sex offenders - while it is true, there is a high rate of recidivism among child sex offenders, there are in fact a larger number of repeat offenders among drug addicts. And while it's not popular to say, as sex offenders are everyone's favorite bogymen these days, therapy has turned many such offenders around. That's not to say that every one of them can be fixed - or even want to.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

27 Mar 2013, 9:20 pm

Visagrunt got to all my points first, so another +1 to him.

IIRC, recidivism rates are no higher than normal for sex offenders across the board, I think it's a few distinct categories that have higher rates.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


fueledbycoffee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 603
Location: Baltimore

27 Mar 2013, 9:41 pm

There's also the fact that in this country, you can not be continually tried for the same crime. You are convicted, you are given a particular sentence, you serve it, you're done. The sex offender registry brands that person for life. They are released into the public, but always outcast. The odds of them finding employment are slim, the odds of them ever feeling accepted are slim, the odds of them ever getting the help they need are slim. As someone said before, the registry increases the chance of that person becoming a repeat offender. Even more so, it increases the likelihood that they may end up homeless, and a drain on society. And finally, it virtually guarantees that they'll be serving that sentence for the rest of their life. Everyone they meet that might have an internet connection will serve as judge and jury.

There's also the question of what it's doing to us as a nation. Children are no longer permitted to play outdoors. Anyone who has a rapport with children, be they a teacher, a priest, a neighbor, come under suspicion. They probably don't want to have sex with that child, but they're guilty of liking and being good with kids. Children are being raised in an environment where they must fear everyone. There are no more sex offenders today than there were fifty years ago, but like autism, increased technology and more features in the news cycle make us think that child molestation is the new big thing. It's the new McCarthyism.



Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,967
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

27 Mar 2013, 9:45 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
It is said that the sex offenders registry is used to protect people from sex offenders. Well if people need protection from them then why have a sex offender's registry at all? Why aren't they being given multiple life sentences instead?


This makes perfect sense (not!). It's so stupid to throw people out on the street and then make it impossible for them to live. This makes them a public burden and possibly a risk of reoffending. Like what are they supposed to do? lol

Why not divide them into three groups?

1. the group of heinous offenders who get executed

2. the group who is allowed to choose between castration and life in prison

3. the group who can be completely rehabilitated and have their record wiped clean



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,212
Location: San Jose

29 Mar 2013, 10:27 am

Id say volcanic sacrifice!


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,571

29 Mar 2013, 4:35 pm

Abolish the sex offender registry.