Vilsack: Local sex offender provisions 'justifiable reaction'

[IA_Seth]

How do y'all feel about these types of laws?


----------
Vilsack: Local sex offender provisions 'justifiable reaction'
Published: 10/05/2005 1:00 PM

http://www.gazetteonline.com/2005/10/05/Home/vilsack.htm

DES MOINES, IA - Gov. Tom Vilsack said today he does not have a problem with local communities that use their home rule authority to adopt sex-offender restrictions tougher than what's in state law.

...

"We want to protect our children. Maybe we come up with imperfect ways, but the intent is to protect our children and we're going to take the steps that we think are reasonable and necessary and appropriate to protect our children," he told a Statehouse news conference.

...

Vilsack was questioned about action such as an ordinance approved in Ely to bar sex offenders with convictions from crimes against minors from living within 2,000 feet of city parks, playgrounds or the public library. A Des Moines city councilman is suggesting Iowa's largest city attempt to bar sex offenders from living anywhere within the city limits.

[Hobarticus]

1. That's a tough call...

On one hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to have some degree of seperation. They just nabbed some repeat offender who had dragged a kid into the bathroom in a library in downton Des Moines and molested him. But not being to live within the city limits is a bit extreme.

On the other hand, it's rather draconian if you're trying to rebuild a life after you've served your time, and are successfiully getting through therapy. I don't know, what's the rate of repeat offenders? If the crime wasn't so heinous, there could be some sort of 'tiered' laws, like drunk driving, where the punishment increases as the number of offenses climbs. Unfortunately child molestation demands some zero-tolerance means to protect kids, too.

[soothsayer]

2. Tough call, indeed. Insidious crime. Interesting Canadian study

Recidivism Rates

One research project looked at 61 previous studies of sexual recidivism using a 4-5 year follow up period. This research on sex offenders found that 13.4% recidivated with a sexual offence, 12.2% recidivated with a non-sexual, violent offence and 36.6% recidivated with any other offence.1

A long term follow-up study of child molesters in Canada found that 42% were reconvicted of sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period.2

In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction).



more http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/page1.htm

More, this time from Texas

<snip>
The public would be remiss in relying on recidivism rates in determining the “dangerousness” of a sex offender. Some sex offenders will inevitably commit new sexual offenses despite our best proactive efforts. Likewise, not all sex offenders who have high probability of re-offense will recidivate. Hanson and Bourgon (2004) in a study of 31,216 sex offenders found that, on average, the observed sexual recidivism rate was 13%, the violent non-sexual recidivism was 14%, and general recidivism was 36.9%. Research has shown that the recidivism rates for sex offenders are much lower than for the general criminal population. In a 1983 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of 108,580 non-sex offender criminals released from eleven (11) states, observed that 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three (3) years of their release from prison and 41% were returned to prison.

<snip>
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/csot/csot_trecidivism.shtm

On edit: This one sez it falls to 10.9% after treatment
http://66.165.94.98/stories/sexoffend.html

[Hobarticus]

3. That's scary, and sad...

So what's the alternative? Institutionalizing sex offenders, for keeps?

[soothsayer]

12. Well since treatment can reduce it to 10.9%, mebbe more of that

[Debi]

9. But doesn't the library incident prove that not allowing sex offenders

to live near schools, having them report where they live, not allowing them to live in small towns doesn't do any good? Does Tom Vilsack now enter an executive order keeping sex offenders from entering public libraries? movie theaters? McDonalds and Chuckee Cheeses? Where does it end?

Not all sex offenders are child molesters. some of them are people who made stupid mistakes as kids, like the 19 year old who exposed himself at a party and a 13 year old was present. Now he's a convicted sex offender. What about the 18 year old who has sex with his 15 year old girl friend? He's a sex offender.

I know I'd hunt down and kill anyone who violated my child, so I don't have a good answer for this. Just food for thought.

[IA_Seth]

11. You bring up a good point..

There has to be lines drawn and classifications made as to types of offenses and who they affect, but who will decide and who "sorts them out".

It's a sticky mess.

If these laws spread (which I predict they will), I wonder what the impact and publicity will do to a potential Vilsack nomination in 08? Help him or hurt him?

[Debi]

13. I hope he's not making these decisions based on how it will affect

his poll numbers for a potential presidential run.

I wish I had an inkling of an answer to the question of who 'sorts them out' or what to do with the people who cannot be helped.

How do you protect the innocent w/out trampling the rights of the accused/guilty/convicted?

[IA_Seth]

4. My thoughts...

It IS a very tough call!

If someone has done their time and has been released from the "correctional" system, then they should be "corrected", right? If there is a chance of re-offending, then they shouldn't be out in the first place. I mean, it's not called a "delaying" system is it?! I hate seeing these "likely to re-offend" notices or whatever. If it is "likely" that I will kill someone, wouldn't you want my ass locked up?

Following that vein, I think they need to toughen the penalties for sex offenders, especially those perpetrated against minors. If we need to be scared of them enough to set up "sex offender free zones" like we've done, then we should have them behind bars, or institutionalized in some other way.

Not to go off on a rant, but I honestly don't see how we can be SO harsh on marijuana users/dealers, and seemingly soft on sex offenders? It is a complete disconnect for me.

Ugh.

I guess for me it comes down to a failure of our "correctional" system when it comes to sex offenders. If they are likely to reoffend, they shouldn't be out. If they've truly served their time and are truly deemed "ok" enough to be out, they should be out without wearing a scarlet letter.

A very tough call. I am interested in hearing everyones thoughts.

[Hobarticus]

5. I don't think they can help themselves...

Before everyone curses my bleeding heart, I truly believe sex offenders are 'wired' to do so. There's something seriously wrong with human nature to do such a vile thing, go to prison and probably get the snot beat out of you there once it gets out into the population why you're there, and then come back into society only to do it again.

This last year, our local paper had a cover story about a offender-convicted mother trying to complete therapy. She really sounded sincere, and was trying to keep on the straight and narrow so she wouldn't lose her kids. Couldn't have been a month later, she re-offended and was going to prison again, most likely losing her children. That's not normal.

So what do we do? Institutionalize them? I don't think they should necessarily be chased around with torches, but I don't know if they're safe in the population, either.

[IA_Seth]

6. What DO we do?

Thats a million dollar question, and one I think is going to be a hot issue in Iowa for the next few years as these local laws get sorted through.

I hate to say institutionalize them, because I really want to believe that all people can be rehabilitated, but part of me thinks that is the solution we must live with.

I don't know what else you can do. I think these local laws barring them from cities and towns will spread like wildfire, because if they don't, the towns without the laws will become sex offender ghettos. I see that as basically the modern equivalent of "chasing with torches" and I just don't like it as a solution.

I am certainly open to more compelling arguments as to a solution.

[Broke Dad]

7. Iowa already holds sex offenders under "civil" commit

Iowa holds the male sex offenders in Mount Pleasant or at Oakdale. The last I knew there were 600 serious sex offenders being held indefinitely under Iowa's civil commitment law.

In the Quad Cities, there was a child rapist that raped a girl, was convicted, did his time, got out and then raped her little sister. Kind of hard to defend that guy.

My two younger brothers used to work in corrections. They saw some really dangerous sex offenders, who even with counseling and medication were stalking potential victims. As Fr. Carroll used to say, "And lead us not into temptation . . ."

Maybe the best community policy after all is segregation of sex offenders.

[IA_Seth]

8. I have to disagree here

And maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying...

If by saying "Maybe the best community policy after all is segregation of sex offenders." you mean allowing them to be free, but living in 'segregated' communities, or areas of communities, I would have to disagree.

If there is a need for segregation, why are we letting them free?

[Debi]

10. How far do we segregate them from society?

Do we build a new town just for sex offenders? What about grocery stores, malls, post offices, gas stations? And who would work/live in a detention town filled with sex offenders? Sees a little far fetched of a proposition.

Obviously the 'you can't live near a school' ban didn't do any good
for the 20-month-old child in the Des Moines Public Library. So what more do we do to keep sex offenders from society?

How far do we go?

[Lurch762]

14. Or we could execute them.

Providing there is DNA evidence to go along with sufficient witnesses/testimony. I don't want these things walking around my 6 and 2 year old girls. We as a party have to get away from this "everybody can be saved" paradigm. A hard working man or woman goes to work for a corporation that uses a number to ID him on the books, pays taxes that rebuild schools on another continent, and lives with Chinese (Walmart) products that used to be American Union-made. I'm tired of government officials, china, and sex offenders getting their way, while the workers find out when they get home that a pervert got out of jail and touched his family members because "he couldn't help it" and we should just rehabilitate him.

[IA_Seth]

15. ...

Believe it or not, I empathize with a lot of what you are saying.

I do not have children, (I am a professional uncle for now) but if anyone were to ever harm a child that is close to me it would be very hard to restrain myself from going after the offender, and I can't tell you what would happen from there. I know it's an issue that ignites tremendous passion, and rightly so.

But I don't know that execution is the way to go. I don't think "everybody can be saved", but I do think a great number of them can be to one extent or another, and whether or not they are able to one day function in a normal society, I don't think a person's life should end because of mental issues.

It surprises me that so many religious conservatives are pro-death penalty when to me it goes against basic Christian principles.

All of the rest of your argument, impersonal work life, a messed up nation-building foreign policy, and the erosion of American manufacturing are all different issues. Yeah, they add up to a different America, and not a better one...but they have nothing to do with executing criminals.

[Broke Dad]

16. Balance

Rule No. 1: Protect my children at all costs.

Rule No. 2: Give every person a chance to redeem them self.

Rule No. 3: When in doubt, see Rule No. 1.

"Recovering" sex offenders are not unlike recovering smokers or recovering alcoholics. Some can go a month, a year or forever without falling off the wagon. Predicting human behavior is not an exact science. There are sex offenders that may deserve a chance to live outside prison, BUT, to be safe, we need them to live somewhere where the opportunity to interact with potential victims either does not exist or is limited.

If we are going to start executing people for committing crimes, I think we should start with corporate executives who drain employee pension funds, buy $5,000 shower curtains with corporate funds and switch to Chinese components. Then we can execute crooked accountants, salesmen, preachers, etc. Maybe we should even execute Democratic politicians that take money from corporations and then screw working people when they vote for corporate deregulation and "tort" reform.

Jesus said let the person without sin be the first to cast a stone.

We progressives had better be careful when we bend over to pick up a stone because in the current environment, a lot of our fellow citizens think we are the ones who deserve to be killed.

[Lurch762]

18. White Collar can be put down also.

Those men who destroyed the life savings of thousands of folks, including retirees, can sit in the same chair with a child rapist. Or an adult rapist, for that matter. How many thousands thought they had sufficiently provided for their own retirement, only to have it disappear due to dishonest accounting. I see no reason to keep alive those who create mistrust in the markets.

[IA_Seth]

19. "...can be put down also." - ??

Are you serious that you would agree with this or are you speaking figuratively...hyperbole maybe?

I agree that we need to clean up America's corporate culture, starting at the top and working down, but the death penalty?

[Debi]

20. I can't agree to death penalty for embezzlement

That's too far fetched.

The death penalty concerns me because of all the mistakes made in the past. Killing one innocent person is killing too many.

I wish I knew what to do about violent/sexual offenders who cannot be rehabilitated, but killing all of them can't be the answer.

[Lurch762]

21. I get no pleasure with the thought...

of killing these people. And one innocent is too many. But how many repeat offenses do we accept? If some of the articles I read are true, many of the offenders were/are victims of this crime themselves. If this is true, and we let them out "hoping " that they won't repeat, isn't this a case of a subset of the overall population "reproducing" themselves so the problem can't go away no matter what we do. I just can't get past the belief that we must break the cycle.

[Bluzmann57]

17. To be honest, I almost was ready to rip you

but I read through your post, and I truly have a loathing for these filthy animals(with apologies to animals). I am anti death penalty, but these alleged people who harm our children must be dealt with and harshly. As a father of now grown children, and even a granddad, I am not really sure how I would react if one of those bastards messed with any of my loved ones. There is a pretty good chance that I would end up in jail too, because I'm not sure I could restrain myself. So we need tougher laws for these perverts to make sure they stay locked up for a long lomg time. Rehab doesn't seem to work on most of these pieces of crap. Punishment is the answer.

[CornField]

22. I'm so very torn

When I wear my Mommy hat, I see fire. I think this is the only circumstance where I could see myself committing violence against another person. Anyone who would hurt my children -- and indeed any child -- like that would be better off turning him/herself into a local firing squad than letting me find him/her.

But then, once the fire in my belly has gone back down to smoldering, I'm struck with the reality of the world. The only way to fully protect my child from such people would be to make this an offense punishable by death -- and even then, there would have be an offense before the person could be needled up. Thus, there is no perfect world and there is no perfect solution. Someone's child will have to be hurt before the bastard can be convicted.

Let me go at this another way: In order to prevent all men-to-women rapes in the U.S., all men would have to be gathered up and shot on the spot. We could lock them up, but there is a chance they would escape. We could slice off their penises, but rape is about control more than it is about sex.

The same can be said of all sex offenders, including child molesters. We live in a society with children -- and those who wish to harm children. Ultimately, I need to teach my own children how to survive in such a world because, whether the dangerous person is next door or in the next county, there is always a chance the two will collide.

When I sit quiet and still, I can see a perfect world. Those who even consider harming children would be plucked from their seats by the mighty hands of the Gods and deposited in some rank corner of the world where they can never escape. When reality sets in I know two things:

1) My children are my responsibility. The government may offer opportunities for their enrichment and education, but it is up to me to take full advantage of those opportunities as they arise.

2) Regardless of the crime, a person who has sufficiently served his/her time as set by our judicial and law enforcement systems must be allowed back into society. To do otherwise, is pure discrimination.