What do you think about Sexual Predator notification for towns and cities?

[trumad]

I posted this earlier under the headline: A question about the character Ronnie for those of you who have seen Little Children?

I'm guessing that most haven't seen the movie so I had no responses.

Here's that thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x169310

But I'd like to know what you think about neighborhood notification of sexual predators?

[kimmerspixelated]

1. Definitely.

Also realtors should be able to be upfront with buyers.

[theNotoriousP.I.G.]

2. I do not have a problem with it

as long as the authorities involved are using a reliable tool of measurement to determine level of threat by the individual.

[donco6]

3. All I can say is . . .

The worst predicament anyone could ever find themselves in is being accused of being a sexual predator. The entire justice system is bent on eradicating them from existence - guilty or not. The current wisdom says there is no punishment severe enough. If you're ever even accused, your life is over.

No one is going to defend an accused sexual predator, no matter what punishment is meted out.

[ecstatic]

4. Call me a predator-bigot, but I think its a great idea

If a predator could control him/herself in the first place, they wouldn't be a criminal, correct?

[Missy M]

5. I have no problem with it...

if it helps protect young children from sexual predators it's a good thing.

[Warpy]

6. It encourages vigilantes and a sense of fear in any area

where they reside, and they have to live somewhere.

The predators who scare me are the ones who haven't been caught yet. They're the nice guys who are hiding behind team sports, schools, and churches. They're the occasional "coolest in the whole wide world" female teacher.

Don't forget, also, that the "sex offender" label is often misapplied, as to some guy who got blind drunk on his 21st birthday and peed in the gutter in front of a crowd and got busted for exposing himself. It's not always accurately applied and there is no way to know what a "sex offender" may be guilty of and what his target is if he's really a predator.

So no, I think the only people who need to know who's registered and where s/he lives are the cops.

[ecstatic]

7. True, up unto the point where you personally have a child who is at risk

Then everything changes, doesn't it?

[Warpy]

38. No, because the ones who register are trying to stay

within the law and out of prison.

The point is that you don't know what their crimes might have been. The point is the greater danger from the ones who haven't been caught yet and have absolutely no reason to be on a nice, tidy list.

You can't make the world perfectly safe. I wish you could, but you can't.

[Missy M]

9. The notices I get in my town state who they are, where they live ..

and what the offense was, even the level of the offense. We do not get notifications on anyone unless they were found guilty. The predators who have been both caught and not caught yet scare me equally. I have never received a notification of someone getting drunk and peeing being a sexual predator.

[Katherine Brengle]

12. I'm sure you didn't just use the "exposed himself innocently" sort

or argument to make a point...

Child molestors and convicted rapists (I'm not talking, got caught taking a piss on the side of the road) have an extremely high incidence of repeat offending. People deserve to know.

My husband is a police officer, and I can tell you, they cannot keep track of everyone who might hurt you all the time - it's a big, busy world.

[MadHound]

28. A high recividism is no excuse

If it were, we would treat drug dealers, users, burglars, muggers, domestic abusers, and drunk drivers, among others, the same way since their recividism rate is higher than that of sex offenders.

[Warpy]

37. The point is that "sex offender" is not specific

and you really don't know what the crime is.

[blonndee]

40. Yes, that is a problem.

I had a student (20 years old) who was a convicted "sex offender" because of just what you said earlier (I looked it up after he told me about it). If I remember correctly, it was "indecent exposure" and it went on the record as a sex offense. That will follow that young man for the rest of his life.

As for how it applies to the REAL sex offenders...I haven't decided yet. I'm still learning and want to think about it a while longer before I make a decision.

[Dracos]

13. Laws need to be changed

because someone pisses in an alley they should not be labeled a sex offender.

[Spangle]

19. I agree to a point.

I don't like the system as it stands today. A person peeing in the bushes or caught dating a person a year or two younger and BOTH in their teens.. Oh PLEASE!

I have a guy on the list who lives on my street. But I'm smart enough to realize that there could be many more on my stree that just haven't been 'caught'. So what exactly would be the point of running off the one guy I DO know to keep an eye on? He is the 'easy' one. I can tell me kids to watch him, not go in his house, etc.

The bad part is, I don't know if this guys crime is one that I should be worried over. I mean, did he pee in the bushes. Did he date a young girl when he was young himself? WHAT? the system doesn't distiguish between behavior like that, and those who prey on kids and others.

The bus stop is at the e4nd of our street. When the media made a hoopla about being able to check things on the net, I got harrassed by all sorts of 'helpful' people dropping by to tell me about the guy on my street. All letting me know. Several wanted to move the bus stop to a different street to protect the kids. AS I pointed out, whos kids would they be protecting? Only the kids that live at the end of the street have to walk by his home. And would STILL have to walk by the home if the bus stop was moved. Nothing would have changed by moving the bus stop. Except.. those on THIS street knows what the guy looks like. WE would know if he was setting out there watching the kids. Move the bus stop, none of the other people that attended that bus stop would know the guy right off the bat.

I can understand limiting them from living close to schools and playgrounds. So they are less likely to walk near where kids play. But having them NOT live near there, doesn't mean they will not stop by. So it gives a false sense of safty.

Parents STILL need to teach children to beaware. NOTHING has changed. Harrassing these people isn't going to change things for the better. But it might make it where the predeters can demand 'protection' just so they might be able to 'live.' and that would be messed up.

[MadHound]

8. Sorry, but I think that notification laws, and other draconian measures being taken

Are absolutely wrong. First off, too many relative innocents get caught up in the system, and their life turns into a living hell. Many places have laws that classify a person as a sexual predator even if their only offense is having a drunken piss where a child can see them. Or if they are seventeen, having consensual sex with their sixteen year old girlfriend(my cousin got tagged with this one, the gf became pregnant and her parents threatened him with marriage or else, and it was an absolutely horrible marriage). Secondly, there is the premise in this country that once you've done your time, a person is clean. This completely violates that notion. Then what about the idea of vigilante justice, which has happened throughout the country. People find out a person with a background lives in their neighborhood, and they beat the shit out him, even kill him. Is that right? That is brought about directly by notification laws. And finally, where does this all lead? Who's next to start having to where a scarlet letter? That's a slippery slope we shouldn't go down, yet sadly we're sliding down it with increasing rapidity.

[blindersoff]

15. mixed feelings here...

my stepdaughter and family recently moved here to our small town. One of the first things she did when they found their rental was to go online to see if there were any sex offenders in their vicinity. There was one listed a few blocks away and she was making a real big deal about it while her 2 girls (6 and 8) were in the room. Then when they moved into the house the kids were outside playing; all of a sudden the two girls came screaming hysterically into the house because a man had walked toward them while they were in the unfenced back yard. (turns out he was the person who was in charge of the well and was going to tell them that they needed to stay away from that part of the yard). I have no problem with my stepdaughter teaching the girls to be careful, but she could have made her point with the kids without having them come completely unglued -- and spared an innocent person the humiliation of being treated like he was a criminal.

[MadHound]

20. Oh geez, those poor kids

Too young to be so scared of other people. Man, I'm glad that I grew up when and where I did, small town in Missouri, could walk anywhere in town without fear(though my mom did tell me not to get into a stranger's car). People actually looked out for the kids and we had the freedom to be kids.
Now kids can't even play outside anymore due to gang violence and other crimes, and are becoming afraid of their own shadow. Sad state of affairs.

[Katherine Brengle]

26. Better safe than sorry.

Not saying all should live in quivering fear, but I fully expect my child to run screaming from a stranger on the street who walks up to her.

[MadHound]

29. Sorry, but if you teach your children to run screaming from a stranger

Then you are really harming their development in later life. Children do not and should not be indoctrinated to live in a constant state of fear, it is unhealthy for their psyche.

[blindersoff]

30. I agree better safe than sorry...

but my step daughter tends toward drama queen status and I think she could have toned it down when talking about it to the kids. She said they were shaking and crying when they came into the house -- and the man hadn't even come into their yard -- was just at the common well area (I'm not sure if they were playing in that area where they were not supposed to be, or not). I just felt that their reaction was a bit over the top because of the way they perceived their mom's reaction. I also think that if they see the world as a place to fear everyone who walks down the street, they are going to run into a lot of people who could send them screaming home.

[Katherine Brengle]

10. 100% in favor -- I already check frequently online.

[redqueen]

11. I'm in the minority here I'm sure, but...

I'm not in favor of them.

[Bluebear]

14. I agree with you.

The offender has done his time and paid his debt to society. And if he is a dangerous individial, why is he being released at all?

[redqueen]

27. Exactly... if they are dangerous...

they should not be out.

That is the real issue.

[Nutmegger]

22. I agree with you 100%.

The so-called "lists" are bunk. Next people will want to start tattooing the offenders and marking their vehicles.

[Bluebear]

25. Marking their vehicles >>>>>

CLEVELAND -- Repeat sexual offenders are the target of new legislation proposed by one of Cleveland’s state representatives.

Democrat Michael DeBose wants the state’s worst sexual predators to display a license plate like the one seen in the picture, on their cars.

The bright pink plate would alert children, parents and police if convicted sex offenders are lurking near schools or playgrounds.

The bill would affect those already subject to community notification.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_print.asp?id=34062

[MadHound]

32. Oh man, what's next, the scarlet letter,

Or simply tatooing some symbol on their forehead.

Look, I find sex offenders as loathsome as the next person, but this is just asking people to take vigilante action.

[Nutmegger]

I read about this and find it, and its supporters, disgusting and subhuman.

Thanks for reposting this.

[Nutmegger]

34. Double post.

[donco6]

23. I agree with you. n/t

[nosmokes]

16. Completely opposed. think of that poor kid in georgia.

i don't know if the register or if all the different registers differentiate between the sex crimes. but there's a big difference between the statutory rape of a 15yo girl that easily looks like she's 20 or so by an adult male than some 'uncle' diddling around with his 8 yo niece. or like the kid in georgia, a a 17yo getting oral from a 15 yo and getting 10 years hard time. and the guy busted for soliciting a prostitute or for being a prostitute. do they belong on a sexual predator list? but under the conditions of some states those guys qualify, and if i understand it correctly, if you end up on the list in one state where you reside, if you move to another stae you automatically end up on that one as well. i got no truck with 'real' child molesters, but lets remember the vast majority of them are found inside the home or are trusted figures in the child's life, not chester the molester in a ratty old overcoat in a dark alley.

[redqueen]

31. Isn't even a majority

that are trusted / well-known acquaintances or relatives?

[mike_c]

17. I don't like it-- it's unreasonable punishment imposed AFTER...

...an individual has already served their time. Yes, I'm familiar with all the arguments about the recidivism rate among sexual offenders, but 1) that class includes MANY people who are not bona fide sexual predators, and 2) if the current sentencing system does not achieve criminal justice objectives then it needs to be researched and modified, but simply adding a lifetime of punishment on top of the mandated sentence is unfair to someone who has already served their time.

[Dracos]

18. I don't have a problem with this

if it keeps kids safe,I do see a problem for abuse, The law needs to be very explicate so that it protects the innocent and watches predators.

[William Bloode]

21. It's bullshit.

It's a silly little feel good law. Why do i feel such you may ask. The truth is it's a crime normally committed inside the family, not some strange outsider. The enemy is most often within.

[mongo]

24. If the laws were narrowly tailored and focused

so that the lists and notifications ONLY included child predators and violent offenders, it would be hard to arguee against it.

But each state has their own law, and they run the gamut. In some states, you can get on the list for public urination. In others, conseual sex with a 17yo will get an 18yo on the list, in other states, a 21yo with a 17yo.

Our store is in a bad neighborhood and we get these notifications on a regular basis. I've seen one where the offense listed was "sodomy" -- how the hell that guy even makes the list is beyond me.

[Nutmegger]

33. These so-called "predator" lists are bunk and should be banned

Sorry, flame me if you wish but these lists do nothing but give people a false sense of security.

People will cry "recidivism" but that's bunk as well. The padded numbers are constantly repeated by the M$M and politicians who want to score political points with their "oh won't somebody think of the children" mantra.

This is from the DoJ Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Child victimizers

• Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.


• Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, 60% had been in prison for molesting a child 13 years old or younger.


• Offenders who had victimized a child were on average 5 years older than the violent offenders who had committed their crimes against adults. Nearly 25% of child victimizers were age 40 or older, but about 10% of the inmates with adult victims fell in that age range.

Predator Panic: A Closer Look

Recidivism Revisited

In the largest and most comprehensive study ever done of prison recidivism, the Justice Department found that sex offenders were in fact less likely to reoffend than other criminals. The 2003 study of nearly 10,000 men convicted of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation found that sex offenders had a re-arrest rate 25 percent lower than for all other criminals. Part of the reason is that serial sex offenders—those who pose the greatest threat—rarely get released from prison, and the ones who do are unlikely to re-offend. If released sex offenders are in fact no more likely to re-offend than murderers or armed robbers, there seems little justification for the public’s fear and the monitoring laws targeting them. (Studies also suggest that sex offenders living near schools or playgrounds are no more likely to commit a sex crime than those living elsewhere.)

And I refuse to defend the putrid vigilantes who take matters into their own hands.

Let's also not forget that a "sexual offender" can be anyone, from a molester to someone who took a piss while in a drunken stupor.

Murders Put Focus on Sex-Offender Registry Policies

Nobody knows why Stephen Marshall killed two men who were on the sex-offender registry in Maine. Immediately after, he took his own life.

One of the men Marshall killed, Joseph Gray, was on the registry for raping a child. The other, William Elliott, was listed because he'd slept with his girlfriend before she turned 16.

These deaths and others raise troubling questions about the public sex-offender registries which every state has. And they highlight the fact that many states list hard-core predators alongside people who may pose little risk to the community.

When Mark Perk read about the men murdered in Maine, he thought the same fate might have befallen him. "They put my name and address on there," Perk says. "Anyone can find me. Yeah, it scared us."

Don't believe the hype.

[pitohui]

39. i agree w. nutmegger

there is no statistical evidence of a high recidivism rate w. so-called child predators, i suspect it's because many if not most of them are not predators at all but a young man of 19 who had a 16 year old girlfriend -- in other words, a perfectly normal young man by standards of my generation who is not a threat to any child

i'm also convinced that many of the people convicted of sex crimes did not commit the crime in question at all

dna comes back and tells us over and over that people in prison or even on death row for rape/murder are innocent of the crimes they were convicted of -- our jury system obviously does not work even one small tiny damn to find the "real" criminals -- so you are always in doubt if the person whose life you propose to destroy ever did anything wrong in the first place except be walking down the street while black or some such other non-offense

and many of the accusations made against family members, how many of those occur when there is money or custody dispute at stake, so you just never know

if we REALLY believed they couldn't be cured AND that we could always perfectly and correctly identify them, we could just kill them, not allow them to walk about free -- but no one advocates the death penalty for this stuff, precisely because we know in our hearts that a huge percentage of the time our courts are just plain WRONG

[alarimer]

35. What concerns me is the increasingly draconian nature

of such notification laws. And the double jeopardy implications. Why not just keep them in jail forever (the ones that actually molest kids or commit rape). Then we wouldn't have to worry about this.

I actually think though that these laws might give a false sense of security. Kids are more likely to be molested by someone they actually know. A friend of the family or an uncle, say. Maybe a coach. People whom other people trust.

[Dracos]

36. Megan's Law

requires 25 years for the fist offense and is now the law in several states.

[Clark2008]

41. I'm for it and don't find it Draconian in the least.

Their convictions are already public record and, if one has the time, one can look up the convictions of ALL of one's neighbors.

The laws simply make it easier for the public to find the record.