The problem is, he probably shouldn't be playing on your block. He needs to be somewhere else. This doesn't do anything, unless you're watching your kids every second of the day.
77004 has 57 if ya'll are comparing tallies, with 1 woman amongst them. I have to agree with RM95, which is scary because I never agree with him. But, I feel like the registry is essentially a second, and therefore unjust, punishment. I understand, Cohen, about the recidivism rate. We may be leaving ourselves open to further predation. But, I don't think the answer is to violate the civil rights of citizens in anticipation of a crime. You have to actually wait until they do something wrong before you punish them. I don't care so much with recent convictions because at least they knew going in what would happen, but retroactively applying this program is wrong. Plus, the system is too often abused by vigilantes and paranoid parents (the last people you want legislating on this: Sonny and Cohen have already implied that reason flies out the window when we're talking about the safety of one's own children) who don't want these folks in their neighborhood and will take it upon themselves to victimize and persecute the convicted. Mrs. JB pointed out that our system is designed to get convicts back to productive life. In practice, I think that is too far from the truth and we're caught in a no-man's land of expecting them to becoming functioning members of society while we throw every roadblock we can think of in their way. They get harrassed and beat up, no one will hire them, no one will befriend them, no one will give them credit, no one will rent to them -- but they better fly right, work hard and keep their noses clean. I won't say it has much to do with recidivism in sex crimes, but it isn't helping much in rehabilitating members of our society.
Honestly, no. If he served his time, then I believe that's all we can ask for. Not only that, you get people who picket and demand that the family move out of the area. That's not very productive to solving the problem, IMO.
Have you even read the thread? No, I don't have kids, but I know a good amount of people who agree with me that do have kids.
yes oh mighty hangout master...i read the thread...i would bet dollars to donuts that MOST people with kids would agree with me
Hold on there Mr. Assume. I didn't say I was going to kill anyone because of prior crimes that they have paid their dues for. But if they commit a crime against mine I will. I definitely don't want to live around them, but I won't mess with them either. Get your facts straight. Oh at least you got one thing right, I will do anything to protect my child, which would be moving to a safer neighborhood, not harassing those who make the current neighborhood unsafe. Please don't try to make me feel bad for the poor "victimized and persecuted" pedophiles... damn.
NJRocket, you could not have read the thread unless you have a reading problem, because the topic of RM95's reproductive history is a significant one in the thread. So no need to attack him when he calls you on this obvious point.
The problem with these published lists, as has already been mentioned, is accuracy. A newspaper over here published a list of addresses. Not unexpectedly, this led to a number of protests, and in some cases violent attacks. There were a significant number of "mistaken identity" cases, where the relevant people had moved, but the abuse and paint and bricks were visited upon the new residents. Mud sticks, unfortunately, and many of these innocent people had to move.
If you guys enjoy going through the sex offenders database, might I suggest checking out the Texas Death Row website, which has pictures, summaries of crimes, execution dates and even final meal requests of the offenders on Texas Death Row. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm The next execution will be tomorrow night. John Elliott will die for the rape/beating death of Joyce Munguia in 1986 in Austin.
In theory Juan's post makes sense. I guess it depends on whether you truly believe that the offender has fully 'paid his debt to society' and is therefore, just like you and me, ready to become a happy productive member of the community. I tend to disagree. Sex offenses are such that you cannot ever fully serve your debt. People on the register are not randomly chosen -- they have been convicted of the stated offences. The risk to neighbours is real -- and the consequences of a reoffence are severe. This is one crime where the consequences of conviction extend beyond the prison term. I know this isn't totally fair to the offender and is potentially against what some consider his civil rights, but I'd rather err on the side of the safety to potential victims. This isn't profiling, in that you are not targeting a group who has a higher probability to offend -- but rather a group who has already offended. It will make their transition to society harder, but again, we have to give some consideration potential victims, and recognize that there is a higher risk. You can debate this issue on principles, and ideals, but in the end you have to ask: Aren't you entitled to be aware when an individual poses a much higher risk to your kids? Should the authorities withhold this information from you when they are aware of the dangers?
my question was a rhetorical one genius...my point is that people with children....not people who have nieces, nephews, cousins, godchildren...but people with children can understand better why it is important to know about sex offenders who live/play/work in their neighborhood
I believe those of us with vaginas are also well aware of the dangers of possible sex offenders. They don't always go after children, you know.
Oh, I owe you a big apology. You are even thorough enough to look up my mental statistics! That's actually very impressive, even if you've embarrassed me a bit.
Sorry, Sonny, I wasn't trying to imply that I'd expect you or anyone here would do something illegal or unethical to neighboring sex offenders. I went back and stuck a parenthetical in there that skewed the meaning of the rest of the sentence. What I am saying in that section (and maybe it is just as offensive) is: 1. The system is used by people to commit crimes against the ex-cons that live near them because of the fear that has recently been agitated around sex offenders. This behavior is, imo, deplorable, and I hate that I am indirectly abetting that through my government's registry. I think there is as much danger of a person committing a crime because they know there is a sex offender next door as there is of a person committing a crime because his neighbors don't know he's a sex offender. I don't think the safety of children should trump the safety of ex-cons -- obviously most will disagree. 2. Parenthetically, I was pointing out the flip-side of the "you don't have any kids" accusation. Who is better suited to make legislative decisions about how to treat child molesters? Is it the parents of potential victims? The child molesters themselves? Or people who are neither molesters nor parents and therefore have a disinterested position from which to judge. I'd choose the last, because the first 2 obviously have some important self-interests involved and cannot be trusted to be fair. They might actually be fair about it, but you already know they have a stake in the outcome. Obviously, we don't legislate that way and probably shouldn't, but the "you don't have kids" argument is bull**** -- his not having kids is to his credit on this argument.
Since something like 75% of child sex offenders are relatives of the child who is abused, one wonders whether spending time worrying about the boogyman living down the street can lead to missing the boogyman who lives in the house. For that matter, if 75% of child sex offenders are relatives of their victims, one would assume that roughly 75% of the child sex offenders listed on the registry abused their own relatives. I don't know that these people are necessarily more dangerous than any number of people in the neighborhood. And while the stat that 45% of sex offenders released ended up back in prison within three years (in Texas in 1992, which is the most recent year I found in my short search) sure sounds scary, that rate was lower than the rate for other violent offenders (47%) and few of those second crimes were sex offenses. According the Texas DPS, of the 56% of sex offenders released in 1992 who were re-arrested in the next three years, only 4% of the crimes were new sex offenses. Twenty-six percent were arrested for a drug or property crime, 18% for a parole violation, and 8% for a violent crime (non-sex crime). And the 1992 numbers may well have been skewed. In 1992, only 9% of the sex offenders released would've fit into the low-risk for recidivism category. Nineteen percent were in the high risk category. According to the scoring policy used by the state, sex offenders who abuse children are less likely not only to commit a new sex crime, but to return to prison within the three years for any crime. The older the offender, the less likely he is to be re-arrested. And while those who abused a stranger are more likely to commit a new crime, those are, as I've noted, only about 1/4th of the sex offenses. In the end, I don't know what the answer is, but it can start to look like that sex offender registration (especially when one adds the expectation that those most likely to be in the highest risk category are the least likely to have the proper addresses on file with the DPS) is something of a waste of time. And before anyone asks, I am a father of two children under the age of 18.
