National Sex Offender Registry should be public

[CANADIEN]

Not only do you support child molesters,but,you're probably a Communist!!!!

Woe to me.

[Argus]

Here is a major problem, and we are ready to go to war over the gun registry. I am in the ottawa valley and I see a preist was released early from jail for being a pervert, and we don't know where he will live.

And what would you do if you did know where he lived?

[Argus]

Yeah, good thing you threw that part in, cuz ya know, no one, anywhere, ever , said that was the goal.

It was the implied goal. It was designed as a sop to urban voters anxious about the shootings taking place in their cites - almost all of which is coming from ethnics.

[Argus]

A child molester has already proven he doesn't care about the community and only wishes to hurt children.

I imagine those on the sex registry who have molested children are probably a small minority.

[Argus]

Yea, I'm well aware of what the registry does and doesn't do. I use "child molester" because it has more shock value then just saying rapist does.

We don't have the offense known as rape any more. The registry lists anyone who has run afoul of any of our sex offense, including illegal porn, I believe. I have made some effort (without success) to find what designated offenses are included but have been unsuccessful.

[Argus]

There's no cure for pedophilia, but that doesn't mean a pedophile is 100% guaranteed to repeat an offense.

Being a pedophile is not an offense - though it may be offensive.

I don't know of any study which say show many people who have a sexual attraction to children act upon them but I'm thinking it's probably a small percentage. I have a vague recollection of a study which suggested a lot of men who aren't pedophiles have had at one time or other, sexual fantasies about children. And if you expand the definition of children to include people who are 17 and a half years old that would probably include most men.

[Mr.Canada]

A pedophile is a label that is only applied to someone who has attraction to PRE PUBESCENT children. Not adolescents, I wanted to make that clear.

Sure it's still against the law to engage with sex with a minor, which is some under the age of consent, in Canada that age is 16. How ever there is a 5 year allowance for teens and young adults called the "close in age exception". A 15 and a 20 year old can have sex without breaking the law. What a 20 year old would want with a 15 year old is beyond me. I don't know what a 20 year old and a 15 year old would have in common but alas.

The public has the right to be safe. We aren't allowed to carry a gun in public but a sex offender can live next to our children with out chemical castration? The whole system is set up to protect the offender and cares nothing for justice for the victims.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Argus]

A pedophile is a label that is only applied to someone who has attraction to PRE PUBESCENT children. Not adolescents, I wanted to make that clear.

Well that's mighty white of you but the registry does NOT make that clear. If a twenty four year old man has consensual sex with a seventeen year old girl he's considered a child sex offender.

A 15 and a 20 year old can have sex without breaking the law. What a 20 year old would want with a 15 year old is beyond me. I don't know what a 20 year old and a 15 year old would have in common but alas.

Are you really this naive? Have you seen some fifteen year old girls? Tracy Lords was the centrefold in Penthouse magazine when she was fifteen. No one knew it because she sure didn't look like a kid. I think she was something like 38D-24-36.

[bloodyminded]

Why limit this to child molestation, or even sex crimes?

You could make the same case for any serious criminal. Id like to know if a theif will multiple convictions is moving into my neigborhood. Or any type of violent criminal. Maybe we could tattoo a system of color coded dots on convict so that everybody knows exactly who their interacting with! It makes sense from a public safety standpoint.

The problem is that one of the fundamental principles of our justice system is that once your sentence, and parole are over the government stops screwing around with you. What some people seem to be suggesting here, is that the government follow these people around for life, and remind everyone about the bad shit they have already served time for. This will prevent them from getting a job, having a normal life, etc. So in additional to their origional sentence they are harrassed for life.

I dont want to be subjected to a legal system that works like that... even if it DOES serve the public interest in SOME ways it damages it in others.

Good points. Laws governing sex offenses have become highly...well, promiscuous, we could say.

Edited September 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[NA Carter]

My doctorate is in Criminal Psychology with a specialty in Sex Offender Psychpathology, so I can comment on this without talking out of my ass.

Yes, it is correct that sex offenders (all offence types) have a lower recidivism rate than non-sexual offenders. The rates differ depending on the specific offence and the profile of the victim, but this is generally true.

Is pedophilia incurable? Depends what is meant by this. Cured could mean "no longer having a sexual attraction to children", or could mean "no longer acting on this sexual attraction". From a clinical perspective, very few mental illnesses are truly curable. Depression is easily treated; however, the underlying chemical imbalance usually remains. Yet, the general public consider a person who is not expressing depressed behaviour as "cured". The same standard is required for pedophilia. Incarcerated patients who undergo an intensive therapeutic program have an 85-90% success rate in terms of not repeating the offence. The caveat that I will place on this is that it refers to recidivism concerning sexual offences. A successfully treated patient may rob a bank or commit a simple assault, but this has no bearing on the previous sexual pathology.

Most repeat offenders are those who have not received treatment during incarceration and the deviant behaviours tend to escalate as the fantasy cycle begins to spiral out of control. The public policy implications should be obvious.

Should the offender registry be public? Absolutely NOT! While there are not rampaging lynch mobs scooping up sex offenders in the US, assaults against them are very common. The media doesn't report on an ordinary bar assault, do they? Why would they report on a sex offender being assaulted? By publishing sex offender information, you prevent released offenders from obtaining a job, developing normal social connections, putting food on the table, paying bills and becoming productive members of society - supposedly the point of releasing anyone from prison. What choice do you give an offender? At least prison means three square meals a day and a roof over their head. Reoffenders tend to commit the crimes that they know. A sex offender is not likely to turn to welfare fraud in order to get sent back to prison, they commit a sexual offence. The public lynch mob mentality is as responsible for the offence as the actual perpetrator.

A quick example. Those in Toronto will remember the Holly Jones murder from a couple of years ago. At the time, the Toronto Sun made a big deal about how there were 200 convicted sex offenders living in the neighbourhood and nobody knew about it. You know why? They weren't offending! Of course the Sun didn't make an equally big deal about how the murderer once caught wasn't a previous sex offender.

There's a time and place for Mr. Canada's "Law and Order", I just hope he understands that he may be creating the very offences that he seeks to eliminate.

[Mr.Canada]

Well that's mighty white of you but the registry does NOT make that clear. If a twenty four year old man has consensual sex with a seventeen year old girl he's considered a child sex offender.

What does a 24 year old man want with a 17 year old girl? What is he doing even hanging out with a 17 year old girl? If they have much in common the guy is a loser, sorry. When I was 24 I was never interested in 17 year olds...lol. Other then that it's called self control and judgment. If a girl tells you she's 17 then that's the end of the conversation, you don't continue to make sexual advances. Are men that hard up that they cannot find girls their own age? If so that is sad that they need to prey upon young girls.

It's very simple Argus. If a girl or boy an adult meets is underage, just walk away. I'd like to know what an adult is doing hanging out in places where minors gather to begin with. Sounds like a loser to me or a guy who has nothing going for him that he has to hang out with people who have nothing either, people who have yet to get their lives in order like our 24 year old who is wanting to have sex with a teenager.

Are you really this naive? Have you seen some fifteen year old girls? Tracy Lords was the centrefold in Penthouse magazine when she was fifteen. No one knew it because she sure didn't look like a kid. I think she was something like 38D-24-36.

Yeah I don't doubt that some minors are probably pretty hot, provocative, or even promiscuous. That doesn't make it ok for adult s to have sex with them. Perhaps to you it does but certainly not to me. In no way does the physical appearance of a minor mean it's ok for an adult to prey upon them and scar them for life.

Just because a 14-17 year old says it's ok to have sex with them doesn't mean it's ok. Do you adults do everything a 14-17 year old tells you to do? If so I think you need to evaluate your decision making ability or see a head shrinker about your inability to make proper judgment calls. Perhaps there is an impulse control problem that can be treated with medication if some people don't have the ability to not seek out sex with minors. A 15 year 9old is still a kid, no matter their appearance.

Argus are you condoning adults having sex with 15 year old girls? This is what is sounds like. So I take it you were against the Tories raising the age of consent from 14 to 16.

[Argus]

What does a 24 year old man want with a 17 year old girl? What is he doing even hanging out with a 17 year old girl? If they have much in common the guy is a loser, sorry. When I was 24 I was never interested in 17 year olds...lol. Other then that it's called self control and judgment. If a girl tells you she's 17 then that's the end of the conversation, you don't continue to make sexual advances.

Let me suggest to you that it isn't always the "adult" pursuing a sexual liason, and that seventeen year old girls can be found in just about any nightclub and bar. Further, they rarely lead their conversations with "I'm only seventeen, you know."

All of which is beside the point. What we need are strong laws to prohibit illegal sexual contact between adults and minors. End of story. If the laws are strong and strictly enforced we don't have to worry about registries because those who are most dangerous will be in jail for quite a while. The only reason you're crying for the registry to be made public is because we have child sex offenders - the real kind - with conviction after conviction after conviction, getting slaps on the wrist and then set free to offend again.

That is what you should be addressing.

[Mr.Canada]

Let me suggest to you that it isn't always the "adult" pursuing a sexual liason, and that seventeen year old girls can be found in just about any nightclub and bar. Further, they rarely lead their conversations with "I'm only seventeen, you know."

All of which is beside the point. What we need are strong laws to prohibit illegal sexual contact between adults and minors. End of story. If the laws are strong and strictly enforced we don't have to worry about registries because those who are most dangerous will be in jail for quite a while. The only reason you're crying for the registry to be made public is because we have child sex offenders - the real kind - with conviction after conviction after conviction, getting slaps on the wrist and then set free to offend again.

That is what you should be addressing.

I think the laws are fine. The police are making arrests so I don't blame them, I blame the courts and parole panels for letting these animals loose to re offend. That's why I like the idea of voting in judges, it would make them accountable to the public. As it is now they are only accountable to themselves.

Alright, stiffer sentencing would defiantly help with the problem. No doubt about it. Sexual offenders are routinely given light sentences for reasons only the liberal judges know, I agree. That's what the OCI facility in Brampton is for, sexual offenders getting "treatment". Mandatory treatment for release should include chemical castration.

I think a more informed public can never be a bad thing. I also believe that normal law abiding citizens don't go looking for conflict and chances to break the law. In fact most people have never been in a fist fight in their lives, so I doubt the public knowing where the child molesters and other sex offenders live would change that.

At the end of the day some adults will always seek out sex with minors no matter the law but letting these people out on light sentences cannot be the only solution. It's only sex to the adult but is will scar that child for the rest of his or her life.

[NA Carter]

The example of a 17 and a 24 year old is poor, considering that this situation exists regularly at universities all across this country. When I was a TA for a first year criminology course, nearly a third of the girls were 17.

I also need to agree with Argus' point that a 24 year old having sex with a 17 year old does not necessarily mean that she's being exploited by the 24 year old. Young women pursue older men all the time and in a university environment, all students are effectively part of your 'peer group', whether they're 17 or 18 or 30.

What I would be concerned with is what offences should apply for listing on the registry. Some are obvious, eg. Aggravated Sexual Assault. Some are not. Should 15 year old Jenny be added to the sex offender registry because she 'sexted' nude photos of herself to her boyfriend? This is technically production of child porn, and is no longer a rare occurrence. Urinating in public is another example that was given earlier. Depending on how pissed off the cop is, it can easily be written up as indecent exposure - a sexual offence.

[bloodyminded]

The example of a 17 and a 24 year old is poor, considering that this situation exists regularly at universities all across this country. When I was a TA for a first year criminology course, nearly a third of the girls were 17.

I also need to agree with Argus' point that a 24 year old having sex with a 17 year old does not necessarily mean that she's being exploited by the 24 year old. Young women pursue older men all the time and in a university environment, all students are effectively part of your 'peer group', whether they're 17 or 18 or 30.

What I would be concerned with is what offences should apply for listing on the registry. Some are obvious, eg. Aggravated Sexual Assault. Some are not. Should 15 year old Jenny be added to the sex offender registry because she 'sexted' nude photos of herself to her boyfriend? This is technically production of child porn, and is no longer a rare occurrence. Urinating in public is another example that was given earlier. Depending on how pissed off the cop is, it can easily be written up as indecent exposure - a sexual offence.

Good points. While I personally feel that it's "wrong" for a 24 year old to be having sex with a 17 year old, the notion that he's a "child sexual offender" approached illogical monstrosity.

And yes, that a minor can get in trouble for producing "child porn" by texting nude pictures of herself could scarcely be further from the spirit of the law that is being invoked here: to protect herself from insidious pedophile [sic] perverts, it seems, she is to be deemed one herself. Down the rabbit hole she goes.

[StevenYoon]

Did you know that treatment for former offenders has been proven effective and that most sex offenders never commit another crime? Did you also know that making it more difficult for former offender to reintegrate into society increases recidivism?

Would you like more *FACTS* and would you like our politicians to base their legislation on facts such as these, rather than their desire to garner votes by looking tough on crime? If so, look at this website:

CanadiansForAJustSociety.webs.com

[William Ashley]

If it is public it should be open to comment by the victim and the offender, as well the court transcript should also be available through the same public database.

This should be true of all crimes personally.

Also the parties should be able to challenge the authenticity as well as state whether they plead guilty or not guilty.

Part of the issue is that some sex offender victims may not wish to have their identities known.

Court transcripts ought to be available regardless.

I don't have enough trust in the absolute correctness of the justice system though. The courts are prone to errors, and lawyers are prone to present lies by profession.

I support an open book view of the justice system. Both sides should be accountable for their actions. People should know when an act is not prooven, but based on statements without supporting evidence. It is too easy for people to lie. And judges make rulings based on statements alone, even if statements are contrary.

It is a two faced system.

Edited November 13, 2010 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

Part of the issue is that some sex offender victims may not wish to have their identities known.

This d'uh moment brought to you by the makers of Facepalm

[dre]

This d'uh moment brought to you by the makers of Facepalm

Ok... that was pretty good.

[Bob]

I'm with Mr. Canada and others that support a public sex offender registry. I was driving back to Ottawa from NYC this past June with my sister and we stopped in some smalltown a couple of hundred kilometres from the border to get a bite to eat. The GPS guided us to some local Italian restaurant. When we walk in, in the foyer, we saw a medium-sized print-out of some pervert that had recently been released in the area, with his full name, photograph, and neighbourhood (perhaps even address?). Obviously this had something to do with one of the American sex-offender registry laws (Megan's Law, right?). Right above it I saw a massive painting of Jesus Christ and other religious Catholic paraphernalia. I thought to myself, and I mean this sincerely, God-bless these people. We need more people like that in the world who are vigilant about protecting others and don't place the privacy concerns of the most reprehensible criminals (those who prey on children) above the need for public security and safety, and the need to protect children. As far as I'm concerned, if you violate a child in such a manner you are an extremely dangerous person who deserves to have his (and rarely her) privacy reasonably compromised for the protection of others from your despicable compulsions and urges.

We need more Sicilians like that in this world, if you ask me. And the pasta and pizza we pretty good, albeit overpriced.

[charter.rights]

I'm with Mr. Canada and others that support a public sex offender registry. I was driving back to Ottawa from NYC this past June with my sister and we stopped in some smalltown a couple of hundred kilometres from the border to get a bite to eat. The GPS guided us to some local Italian restaurant. When we walk in, in the foyer, we saw a medium-sized print-out of some pervert that had recently been released in the area, with his full name, photograph, and neighbourhood (perhaps even address?). Obviously this had something to do with one of the American sex-offender registry laws (Megan's Law, right?). Right above it I saw a massive painting of Jesus Christ and other religious Catholic paraphernalia. I thought to myself, and I mean this sincerely, God-bless these people. We need more people like that in the world who are vigilant about protecting others and don't place the privacy concerns of the most reprehensible criminals (those who prey on children) above the need for public security and safety, and the need to protect children. As far as I'm concerned, if you violate a child in such a manner you are an extremely dangerous person who deserves to have his (and rarely her) privacy reasonably compromised for the protection of others from your despicable compulsions and urges.

We need more Sicilians like that in this world, if you ask me. And the pasta and pizza we pretty good, albeit overpriced.

Whatever you say Mr. Falange.

[Bob]

Whatever you say Mr. Falange.

NO TROLLING/FLAMING

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

[dre]

I'm with Mr. Canada and others that support a public sex offender registry. I was driving back to Ottawa from NYC this past June with my sister and we stopped in some smalltown a couple of hundred kilometres from the border to get a bite to eat. The GPS guided us to some local Italian restaurant. When we walk in, in the foyer, we saw a medium-sized print-out of some pervert that had recently been released in the area, with his full name, photograph, and neighbourhood (perhaps even address?). Obviously this had something to do with one of the American sex-offender registry laws (Megan's Law, right?). Right above it I saw a massive painting of Jesus Christ and other religious Catholic paraphernalia. I thought to myself, and I mean this sincerely, God-bless these people. We need more people like that in the world who are vigilant about protecting others and don't place the privacy concerns of the most reprehensible criminals (those who prey on children) above the need for public security and safety, and the need to protect children. As far as I'm concerned, if you violate a child in such a manner you are an extremely dangerous person who deserves to have his (and rarely her) privacy reasonably compromised for the protection of others from your despicable compulsions and urges.

We need more Sicilians like that in this world, if you ask me. And the pasta and pizza we pretty good, albeit overpriced.

If this is how you think the legal system should work, then why stop at sex offenders? Why not other violent criminals? Why not thieves, drunk drivers... hell why not white collar criminals?

[charter.rights]

NO TROLLING/FLAMING

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

How do you take indifference to mean trolling? I simply recognize where this is coming from....

[Jack Weber]

How do you take indifference to mean trolling? I simply recognize where this is coming from....

I believe he's just become "Mr.Falange...Part Deux!"

There is only one Mr.Falange....